Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[theogt]

POSTED 10:19 p.m. EST, February 13, 2008
SPECTER SAYS PATS CHEATED STEELERS IN 2004


In a press conference conducted after his Wednesday meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said that notes surrendered by the Patriots to the league showed that the Patriots engaged in videotaping of defensive signals against the Steelers in 2004 (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/13/senator-specter-says-the-patriots-taped-the-steelers-twice-durin/).


The significance? When the Pats and Steelers played during the regular season that year, the Steelers ended New England's NFL-record 21-game winning streak. When they got together again in Pittsburgh in January 2005 (I was there, and I still have a couple of frozen body parts from it), the Pats could have used the information gathered during the regular-season game to topple the Steelers.


POSTED 10:04 p.m. EST, February 13, 2008
SPECTER WANTS NFL TO INDEMNIFY WALSH


Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) wants the NFL to provide indemnity (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244157) to Matt Walsh for any legal entanglements that might arise from any decision by him to speak about what he knows (or what he thinks he knows) about the past practices of his former employer, the New England Patriots.


Last week, Mortensen reported that the NFL would indeed provide such protection.


It would create an awkward situation for the Patriots, who would essentially be suing the league if they were to elect to take action against Walsh.


Viewing the matter more broadly, why wouldn't the Pats simply release Walsh from his confidentiality agreement, insofar as it relates to any practices that he reasonably believes to be cheating? That's the real question that should be asked, in our view. If the Pats have nothing to hide, why not give Walsh a blank check to talk?


Though Specter doesn't have the ability to convene a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee because he's not the chairman, a refusal by the league or the Pats to permit Walsh to talk could be used by Specter to cajole his colleagues into issuing a subpoena to Walsh.

[Bob Sacamano]

the Pats are going to get bent over

[theogt]

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season
Posted Feb 13th 2008 7:39PM by Ryan Wilson

Well, it looks like Senator Arlen Specter didn't get around to talking about the NFL's antitrust exemption during today's meet-and-greet with commissioner Roger Goodell. As Michael David Smith wrote earlier, Specter learned that the Patriots have been videotaping opponents since 2000, something that wasn't clear when the league concluded its investigation in September.

In a post-meeting press conference, Specter elaborated. The senator said that "there were notes showing that the Steelers games had been taped." Specifically, two contests during the 2004 season: one on Oct. 31, and the other, the AFC Championship, on Jan. 27.

A couple of things worth pointing out: Pittsburgh smoked the Patriots in the first meeting, 34-20, sacking Tom Brady four times and picking him off twice. Three months later, the two teams met in the conference finals. Unsurprisingly (in hindsight), the Patriots won 41-27, and Brady, sacked just twice in the rematch, finished 14 of 21 for 207 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Did New England gain an advantage from having videotaped Pittsburgh during the teams' first meeting? There isn't enough evidence to say that, yes, unequivocally the Patriots won because they had the Steelers' defensive signals. But it would also be naïve to suggest that having access to that information had no bearing on the outcome. If that were true, Matthew Estrella (and Matt Walsh before him) wouldn't have had a job.

Either way, this doesn't do much for the Patriots' legacy as one of the best teams in NFL history, and it doesn't do much for Roger Goodell's credibility.

I also wonder if Bill Cowher might want to reconsider his earlier thoughts on the Steelers' other AFC Championship game against the Patriots.

[Future]

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) wants the NFL to provide indemnity to Matt Walsh for any legal entanglements that might arise from any decision by him to speak about what he knows (or what he thinks he knows) about the past practices of his former employer, the New England Patriots.

If indemnity means he gets a free pass, then I would be all for it.

[theogt]

Belichick has been taping since 2000, Goodell tells Specter
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
February 13, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday.

"There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting, which was requested by Specter so the commissioner could explain his reasons for destroying the Spygate tapes and notes.

ADVERTISEMENT
"There were a great many questions answered by Commissioner Goodell," Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting. "I found a lot of questions unanswerable because of the tapes and notes had been destroyed."

Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal; Goodell said he did not concur.

"He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts."

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 because of the Spygate incident. The Patriots also forfeited a first-round draft pick.

Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell.

Goodell also said he has not heard from Matt Walsh, the former Patriots employee who performed some videotaping duties for the team.

Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17.

Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal.

Goodell also said he reserves the right to reopen the investigation if more information is uncovered.

[Rampage]

shocking!:rolleyes: but..but... bill belicheat is a genius:lmao:

[tyke1doe]

Belichick has been taping since 2000, Goodell tells Specter
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
February 13, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday.

"There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting, which was requested by Specter so the commissioner could explain his reasons for destroying the Spygate tapes and notes.

ADVERTISEMENT
"There were a great many questions answered by Commissioner Goodell," Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting. "I found a lot of questions unanswerable because of the tapes and notes had been destroyed."

Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal; Goodell said he did not concur.

"He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts."

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 because of the Spygate incident. The Patriots also forfeited a first-round draft pick.

Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell.

Goodell also said he has not heard from Matt Walsh, the former Patriots employee who performed some videotaping duties for the team.

Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17.

Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal.

Goodell also said he reserves the right to reopen the investigation if more information is uncovered.

Two things in this story confirms what I've stated throughout this situation:

1. Goodell knew the extent of the cheating.

2. Walsh took tapes which were the property of the league and needs indemnity because he "improperly" took that property.

Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said.

But I'm waiting for these tapes Walsh is suppose to have. Will he go Royal Flush or is he just bluffing?

We'll soon find out.

[theogt]

1. Goodell knew the extent of the cheating.Of course he did. And he destroyed the evidence so no one else would find out the extent of it.

[Rampage]

Of course he did. And he destroyed the evidence so no one else would find out the extent of it.
who is in your av?

[tyke1doe]

Of course he did. And he destroyed the evidence so no one else would find out the extent of it.

We really don't know what he destroyed. There are conflicting reports.
I've seen one story that says the only tapes destroyed were from games late in the 2006 and preseason of 2007.
I haven't heard any other tapes he ordered destroyed, have you? Or maybe you can link to a story that tells which tapes were destroyed from what games.

[dadymat]

down comes the mighty empire.............:lmao2:


its a damn shame what this will do to Brady's legacy as one of the greats ......or will it have any effect? he is no doubt one of the best ever...right?

[CM Duck]

We really don't know what he destroyed. There are conflicting reports.
I've seen one story that says the only tapes destroyed were from games late in the 2006 and preseason of 2007.
I haven't heard any other tapes he ordered destroyed, have you? Or maybe you can link to a story that tells which tapes were destroyed from what games.

Like I have said in this forum before, I am sure Goodell destroyed all the video tapes he was given by the patties. Which I honestly believe were all the tapes they had in their posession....because they were the only tapes that the patties didn't get to throw into the wood chipper before the NFL showed up at their door step....

At least we know how billy boy went from a crappy head coach in Cleveland, prior to the year 2000, to a "super genius" once landing in New England

[theebs]

Hmm, I wonder if Belichik was taping his buddy Jimmy in the 1991 season opener?

I wonder if belichick taped parcells in the 94 playoffs?

one thing is for sure, he put all those tapes to work from 2000 and 01 to help that team dominate in 02....wait didnt they finish...oh never mind.

[CrazyCowboy]

Unreal.....hard to believe.......Carma for losing the SB to the Giants.

[thewireman]

who is in your av?


Its from the movie Kill Bill Vol 2

[vta]

Its from the movie Kill Bill Vol 2

Pablo Escobar...

How likely is it that Bill gets booted from the league over this?

[CATCH17]

I really dont consider it cheating if they are recording a teams signals DURING THE GAME.

If they are spying in a teams practice or walkthrough then thats definetely cheating.

[tomson75]

I really dont consider it cheating if they are recording a teams signals DURING THE GAME.

If they are spying in a teams practice or walkthrough then thats definetely cheating.

Not that I really care, but if the league creates a rule saying that one team can't videotape another's signals before or during a game, and a team does so anyway....by definition, that's cheating.

[CATCH17]

Not that I really care, but if the league creates a rule saying that one team can't videotape another's signals before or during a game, and a team does so anyway....by definition, that's cheating.

Thats true... I just scanned through this thread and if the league has a rule against it during the game then yes its cheating.

I just wonder how many of the 32 teams video tape other teams signals? Like 31?

I remember hearing when all of this stuff broke the Patriots had a guy with a photographic memory that could see the other teams signs and personell packages and know the exact play they were going to run.

Oh well. 18-1... pwned

[tomson75]

Thats true... I just scanned through this thread and if the league has a rule against it during the game then yes its cheating.

I just wonder how many of the 32 teams video tape other teams signals? Like 31?

I remember hearing when all of this stuff broke the Patriots had a guy with a photographic memory that could see the other teams signs and personell packages and know the exact play they were going to run.

Oh well. 18-1... pwned

Lmao...yeah.

Actually, I regress. I'm not entirely sure when the league instituted the rule. It may have been after that game. If so, then you're right IMO. Either way, they got what they deserved in Arizona.

[sbark]

I remember hearing when all of this stuff broke the Patriots had a guy with a photographic memory that could see the other teams signs and personell packages and know the exact play they were going to run.

Kinda like the Dustin Hoffman/ Tom Cruise movie with the dyslectic card counter in Vegas........"the Rainman"

Maybe thats what they are bringing Campo back for...........:D

ok somewhat harsh.........:p: apologize in advance...but too good to pass up

[CaptainAmerica]

I don't expect anything to come of this unless Walsh has more info that contradicts what the Pats told the NFL.

The only thing that has come of this is that Specter has now made it public that the Pats taped the Steelers the same year they beat them in the AFC Championship game. It's funny how Roger overlooked letting the public know that (or any other detail about the tapes) when he handed out his punishment earlier this year.

If nothing else, this revelation just further tarnishes their legacy.

[tyke1doe]

Like I have said in this forum before, I am sure Goodell destroyed all the video tapes he was given by the patties. Which I honestly believe were all the tapes they had in their posession....because they were the only tapes that the patties didn't get to throw into the wood chipper before the NFL showed up at their door step....

At least we know how billy boy went from a crappy head coach in Cleveland, prior to the year 2000, to a "super genius" once landing in New England

That could be a possibility.

[Sam I Am]

the Pats are going to get bent over

My thoughts on the Cheatriots*?

https://www.paganshopping.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/EBREM.JPG

[AmishCowboy]

Well, since it was the Steelers maybe we'll let it slide!:o: :steelers:

[peplaw06]

Two things in this story confirms what I've stated throughout this situation:

1. Goodell knew the extent of the cheating.

2. Walsh took tapes which were the property of the league and needs indemnity because he "improperly" took that property. I don't think anyone ever argued with you on those two points. The rest of your tripe was just Goodell pandering.

Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said. He said, he said, yes... but that doesn't mean Walsh won't be more credible than Belichick.

[Sam I Am]

Pablo Escobar...

How likely is it that Bill gets booted from the league over this?

I've never watched the Kill Bill movies as I'm not a big Quentin Tarantino fan, but I'm well aware of who the REAL Pable Escobar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar) was. People think Al Capone was a powerful and dangerous man. He was nothing compared to Pablo Escobar.

[utrunner07]

Wow, so this must be what it was like to have watched the USSR crumble...sheer joy!

[yentl911]

I think that Goodall destroyed the tapes to limit the damage to the league and the Pats due to the extent of the cheating.

If it came out for a fact that the cheating was extensive to the point that it definitely effected the outcome of playoff and super bowl games the ramifications would be enormous.

Goodall was just trying to keep this as low key and off the radar as possible.

Personnaly, if they cheated, they should be stripped of some of the titles they won.

Individuals are getting much worse - jail time - for cheating. The Patriots were doing this on an organizational level - damn embarrassing for the team and the league.

[HowAboutThemCowboys]

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.


I was halfway buying the excuse that he destroyed them because they felt that they got all the info they needed and that the tapes were no longer useful to the league, but of he actually used this as an excuse then I'm calling BS. There is a coverup. That is one of the lamest excuses he could have come up with.:laugh2:

[HowAboutThemCowboys]

I don't think they would ever strip them of titles, but if they did, would the Super Bowl runner-up be declared the champs? Talk about major asteriks in the NFL history books if that happened.

[zrinkill]

Just strip them and declare no winners for that year.


(I do not want the Eagles getting one :D)

[theogt]

Just strip them and declare no winners for that year.


(I do not want the Eagles getting one :D)Who's to say they would have beaten the Steelers? They were 17-1 at that point, I believe. Ugh..then they'd have 6 trophies.

[khiladi]

I just love how prior to Super Bowl week, NFL Network and ESPN were gushing about how Bellichek prepares his players, and is about constant repetition. His players and Bellichek himself were all smiles about the team. New England was the talk of town, their greatness unquestioned. The media was talking about how the Patriots never needed Spy-gate to win the SB, as this year was proving. Until Spectre showed up once again, alonmg with Walsh.

Bellichek's coaching credibility is now going down the drain in the game that was suppose to solidify his greatness. The game that was ultimately suppose to redeem his past 3 chamionships. It was all the more beautiful when Brady got curshed on the second to last play of the game, with Bellichek calling deep balls to Randy Moss in desparation, trying to rely on him alone to take them to the promised land. Poor Brady... His OL couldn't get away with that much holding in light of the scandal.

Now, everybody has just disappeared. Tom Brady is in hiding, and you would think they would try and get a peep out of him. Bellichek, nobody knows where he is. And I'm loving every minute of it. I think Spectre deserves to have a position for life in the government...

[DCfaninDC]

I have a question. What do they mean when they say they handed the NFL all the tapes they had?

I mean there is no way for the NFL to know how many tapes they had to begin with. Also, how hard is it to make copies of the tapes and give the NFL the originals and keep an extra copies for just in case situations and use them here and there?

To me this whole thing doesn't make any sense. I am talking about "they gave the NFL all the tapes in their possession". This one stinks, stinks like fish I tell ya, oh wait no it is clam chowder.

[khiladi]

I have a question. What do they mean when they say they handed the NFL all the tapes they had?

I mean there is no way for the NFL to know how many tapes they had to begin with. Also, how hard is it to make copies of the tapes and give the NFL the originals and keep an extra copies for just in case situations and use them here and there?

To me this whole thing doesn't make any sense. I am talking about "they gave the NFL all the tapes in their possession". This one stinks, stinks like fish I tell ya, oh wait no it is clam chowder.

Per Goodell, they went on the word of Bellichek. Now, as per the words of Spectre, Goodell is reportedly saying that the taping went back to the year 2000, when he was originally arguing that the tapes that proved they were cheating only went as far back as 2006.

The fact is, Goodell has been exposed as a fraud. His hypocrisy in laying down punsihments was bound to back-fire.

[Chocolate Lab]

I remember hearing when all of this stuff broke the Patriots had a guy with a photographic memory that could see the other teams signs and personell packages and know the exact play they were going to run.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams

It's too funny that Goodell knew they'd been doing this since 2000, yet he only recovered six tapes from the team.

[burmafrd]

I think its pretty clear that this was known for some time and that Goodell HOPED no one had tapes of their own. If there are tapes of this then it is going to be close to the Black Sox scandal. I am more and more of the belief that Goodell talked to at least SOME of the owners about this and everyone wanted this to go away no matter what. Now it is blowing up in spectacular fashion.

[Yakuza Rich]

No Roger, you were not the ones that disclosed the Pats videotaping scheme. That was disclosed by Eric Mangini.


YOU, Roger, on the other hand made an investigation process consisting soley of the Pats handing over any videos and taking the Pats word for it. YOU, and ONLY YOU, Roger are responsible for your irresponsible actions.




YAKUZA

[SultanOfSix]

Lies only lead to more lies, and then they come full circle and bite you in the ***.

[REDVOLUTION]

First... the Pats were gonna get a pass = no *

Then... the possibility of Pats was debated = yes *

Now... the Pats have managed to work themselves into getting a = tainted *

[03EBZ06]

I'm not into government intervention of private sector issues but this is great and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Mad props to Sen. Specter for being a bulldog over this cheating issue and making Goodell squirm over his inadequacy of the investigation and being high and mighty of his self-importance.

[DCfaninDC]

Per Goodell, they went on the word of Bellichek. Now, as per the words of Spectre, Goodell is reportedly saying that the taping went back to the year 2000, when he was originally arguing that the tapes that proved they were cheating only went as far back as 2006.

The fact is, Goodell has been exposed as a fraud. His hypocrisy in laying down punsihments was bound to back-fire.Ok maybe I wasn't clear on how to ask the question. What I meant was, what if they haven't really given the NFL all the tapes they had. I mean how can the NFL make sure that the Pats don't have back-up copies they can use later?

Also, if you caught a person cheating and think he is not honest to the game, how can they beleive anything he says from that point on?

To be honest, I really disliked Belicheck, but always thought he was one of the great ones and very smart. Now, hmmm...he is looking more like a Jim Haslett as far as I am concerned.

[peplaw06]

Ok maybe I wasn't clear on how to ask the question. What I meant was, what if they haven't really given the NFL all the tapes they had. I mean how can the NFL make sure that the Pats don't have back-up copies they can use later?

Also, if you caught a person cheating and think he is not honest to the game, how can they beleive anything he says from that point on?

To be honest, I really disliked Belicheck, but always thought he was one of the great ones and very smart. Now, hmmm...he is looking more like a Jim Haslett as far as I am concerned.

Wha?? You don't trust a cheater to turn over all evidence of his cheating? I am shocked!!:eek:


;)


Actually the only thing I think Belichick has going for him is IIRC this wasn't illegal until 2006.

I can't remember if Goodell told him to turn over all tapes in their possession or all evidence of cheating. I've gotten so twisted up in debating this, sometimes I forget where my points begin and the facts end.

But in the big scheme of things, it matters little. It wasn't illegal to shoot HGH into your butt when Clemens was alleged to have done it. But we all know how that's going for ole Rog.

[03EBZ06]

Ok maybe I wasn't clear on how to ask the question. What I meant was, what if they haven't really given the NFL all the tapes they had. I mean how can the NFL make sure that the Pats don't have back-up copies they can use later?

That's just it, Goodell took belicheat and patsies word for it and said it's good enough.

Goodell knew the patsies were cheating since 2000, that's 112 regular season games and many playoff games and he actually believed that there were only 6 friggin tapes, even if they were reused? Come on now, that is ridiculous.

Also, I really can't see wealthy corporations like NFL franchise like patsies reusing tapes to save few bucks.

umm, ok.

[peplaw06]

That's just it, Goodell took belicheat and patsies word for it and said it's good enough.

Goodell knew the patsies were cheating since 2000, that's 112 regular season games and many playoff games and he actually believed that there were only 6 friggin tapes, even if they were reused? Come on now, that is ridiculous.

Also, I really can't see wealthy corporations like NFL franchise like patsies reusing tapes to save few bucks.

umm, ok.No joke.... these teams have a library with thousands of tapes/DVDs in them. I mean, I'm sure each scouting department has video of all the prospects in this year's draft. Then every team one team plays in a season, they likely have every pre-season, and regular season game tape up to the last week's game. And they're out there filming their own practices, etc.

This was never a believable explanation.

[DCfaninDC]

That's just it, Goodell took belicheat and patsies word for it and said it's good enough.

Goodell knew the patsies were cheating since 2000, that's 112 regular season games and many playoff games and he actually believed that there were only 6 friggin tapes, even if they were reused? Come on now, that is ridiculous.

Also, I really can't see wealthy corporations like NFL franchise like patsies reusing tapes to save few bucks.

umm, ok.Oh well why didn't say that? Now it all makes sense. Mr Goodell whose sole interest is to make money for the NFL owners is going to be honest to the game and fans. Yeah, he is going to expose everything even if that means the NFL will end up looking like baseball.:rolleyes:

Screw that and all of them, I am not going to watch any football anymore.

[Dodger12]

I'm not into government intervention of private sector issues but this is great and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Mad props to Sen. Specter for being a bulldog over this cheating issue and making Goodell squirm over his inadequacy of the investigation and being high and mighty of his self-importance.

Sen. Specter is no hero. He's a Pittsburgh fan who's using his official position and authority to bully the Patriots and the NFL. Hardly what I want my Senator doing.

I don't think anyone can question Bellichick's defensive genius. As a HC, he lucked into the greatest QB's of his generation in Brady. Stealing signals has been going on in every sport and it just sounds like sour grapes to me. If peopel want to preserve the integrity of the game(s), then steroids is a far larger issue.

[REDVOLUTION]

I'm not into government intervention of private sector issues but this is great and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Mad props to Sen. Specter for being a bulldog over this cheating issue and making Goodell squirm over his inadequacy of the investigation and being high and mighty of his self-importance.



Baseball wouldnt clean itself up. So it got the ball rolling.

Goodell was giving the Pats a pass and it wasnt right. Again got the ball rolling


For the greater good - I am all for it.
For the individual agenda stuff - I am not.

[DCfaninDC]

Sen. Specter is no hero. He's a Pittsburgh fan who's using his official position and authority to bully the Patriots and the NFL. Hardly what I want my Senator doing.

I don't think anyone can question Bellichick's defensive genius. As a HC, he lucked into the greatest QB's of his generation in Brady. Stealing signals has been going on in every sport and it just sounds like sour grapes to me. If peopel want to preserve the integrity of the game(s), then steroids is a far larger issue. First of all that is just your own opinion and not many people care about steroids as you might think. Alot of people are still going to the games.

I don't think steroids is as bad as stealing the signals. Here is why. You can take steroids all you want and get big all that, but if you are not good to begin with and do not have the coordination and quick reaction, then you won't hit the ball anyways. Does it give you an advantage, sure.

Also, baseball and steroids is different than stealing signals in the NFL. Baseball is very different in that you only have one player batting at a time. If the bases are empty, the steroid guy can only have one RBI and will have to wait for his turn again in the line-up. Signal stealing has an effect on the whole team.

[TheCount]

Belichick has been taping since 2000, Goodell tells Specter
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
February 13, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday.

"There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter said.

Specter said Goodell gave him that information during the 1-hour, 40-minute meeting, which was requested by Specter so the commissioner could explain his reasons for destroying the Spygate tapes and notes.

ADVERTISEMENT
"There were a great many questions answered by Commissioner Goodell," Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting. "I found a lot of questions unanswerable because of the tapes and notes had been destroyed."

Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal; Goodell said he did not concur.

"He said that's always been his interpretation since he's been the head coach," the commissioner said. "We are going to agree to disagree on the facts."

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 because of the Spygate incident. The Patriots also forfeited a first-round draft pick.

Specter has questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation into the matter and raised the possibility of congressional hearings if he wasn't satisfied with Goodell's answers. Specter also raised the threat of Congress canceling the league's antitrust exemption and reiterated that in the meeting with Goodell.

Goodell also said he has not heard from Matt Walsh, the former Patriots employee who performed some videotaping duties for the team.

Walsh told The Associated Press last week during the Pro Bowl in Hawaii that he couldn't talk about allegations that he taped a walkthrough practice by the St. Louis Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl. New England, a two-touchdown underdog, won that game 20-17.

Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity. Specter said he, too, wanted to talk to Walsh and perhaps offer a different deal.

Goodell also said he reserves the right to reopen the investigation if more information is uncovered.

------------------

No wonder they burned all the tape, imagine the fallout!


Article (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-goodell-specter&prov=ap&type=lgns)

[03EBZ06]

Sen. Specter is no hero. He's a Pittsburgh fan who's using his official position and authority to bully the Patriots and the NFL. Hardly what I want my Senator doing.

I don't think anyone can question Bellichick's defensive genius. As a HC, he lucked into the greatest QB's of his generation in Brady. Stealing signals has been going on in every sport and it just sounds like sour grapes to me. If peopel want to preserve the integrity of the game(s), then steroids is a far larger issue.
No one said Sen. Specter was a hero. I'm giving him a props for pushing commish to do what he should have done rather than going through the motion and getting rid of evidence which created more questions and then not answering the questions.

Here is an enlightenment for you, the elected official isn't only serving you, they don't only do things that you feel important.

Sour grapes? Ummm, ok, I guess to you, cheating is acceptable action, nice.

[superpunk]

Wait guyz...I've just been dowloaded some new breaking informations.

Observe these findings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOaGkPXn9LQ).

The man is a genius.

[Iago33]

Wait guyz...I've just been dowloaded some new breaking informations.

Observe these findings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOaGkPXn9LQ).

The man is a genius.

My Mom's been putting peanut butter on both slices of bread for years, and that old Cheater is trying to say he came up with it! He must have been using video.

[Dodger12]

First of all that is just your own opinion and not many people care about steroids as you might think. Alot of people are still going to the games.

By your logic, then not many people care about the Patriots issue as well since allot of people are still going to the game and didn't the SB break all viewing ratings?

I don't think steroids is as bad as stealing the signals. Here is why. You can take steroids all you want and get big all that, but if you are not good to begin with and do not have the coordination and quick reaction, then you won't hit the ball anyways. Does it give you an advantage, sure.

Steroids enhances your performance which has a direct impact on the game. You can't have a guy hit 10 HR's one season and hit 40 the next on juice and not affect the outcome of games. People heal faster which gets them out on the field after an injury. That impacts the game's outcome, especially if it's your ace pitcher (Clemens) or your clean up hitter (Bonds).

Also, baseball and steroids is different than stealing signals in the NFL. Baseball is very different in that you only have one player batting at a time. If the bases are empty, the steroid guy can only have one RBI and will have to wait for his turn again in the line-up. Signal stealing has an effect on the whole team.

Even if you steal signals and you know what's coming, if a player doesn't have the "coordination and quick reaction" to make the play, that won't happen in football either. That works both ways. If you've got a guy on first and you steal the 3rd base coaches signals, then you know what's coming (bunt, steal, hit and run, suicide, etc.). That's been going on since the dawn of time.

And if you feel the impact is lessened because people only bat one at a time, then what if your pitcher, who touches the ball on each and every play, is on the juice? Coaches in all sports get paid good money to look at film and scout a teams strenghts and weaknesses. On many occassions, these guys already know what's coming by the formation of the offense. But if an athlete is faster and stronger than his opponent because of a drug, then that's an uneven playing field any way you slice it.

Also, in the NFL, you almost have constant player movement. Guys get cut, traded or released and are picked up by a rival team for information on that opponent. I don't think asking that (released) player about his former team's tendencies and signals is off limits.

[Dodger12]

No one said Sen. Specter was a hero. I'm giving him a props for pushing commish to do what he should have done rather than going through the motion and getting rid of evidence which created more questions and then not answering the questions.

Here is an enlightenment for you, the elected official isn't only serving you, they don't only do things that you feel important.

Sour grapes? Ummm, ok, I guess to you, cheating is acceptable action, nice.

My only point is that Sen. Specter is pushing the issue as a Pittsburgh fan, not to defend the integrity of the game. Maybe sour grapes on his end, not mine, as I couldn't give two hoots about the Pats.

And, of course, cheating of any kind is not acceptable. But in a time of war, a sinking economy and threats of terrorism, there's got to be something better for a Senator to do then address this issue as a Steeler's fan. Just my opinion and no slight against yours.

[Rampage]

My only point is that Sen. Specter is pushing the issue as a Pittsburgh fan, not to defend the integrity of the game. Maybe sour grapes on his end, not mine, as I couldn't give two hoots about the Pats.

And, of course, cheating of any kind is not acceptable. But in a time of war, a sinking economy and threats of terrorism, there's got to be something better for a Senator to do then address this issue as a Steeler's fan. Just my opinion and no slight against yours.

#1 he's an eagle fan
#2 how do you know why he's doing this?

[khiladi]

Everybody has their own motivations... If it so happens that Spectre's motivations lead to the truth, too bad for the Patriots...

[DCfaninDC]

By your logic, then not many people care about the Patriots issue as well since allot of people are still going to the game and didn't the SB break all viewing ratings?I would like to beleive that most of those people were waiting and wanting the Pats to lose. I am not sure if was as obvoius to you as it was to me, but most people at the SB wre rooting for the Giants. I worked with a lot of Redskins fans and some Cowboys fans, and all wanted the Pats to lose, they didn't care about the Giants winning.

Steroids enhances your performance which has a direct impact on the game. You can't have a guy hit 10 HR's one season and hit 40 the next on juice and not affect the outcome of games. People heal faster which gets them out on the field after an injury. That impacts the game's outcome, especially if it's your ace pitcher (Clemens) or your clean up hitter (Bonds).I am all up for it when it is used for healing. Let's have the best players palying. What is wrong with that? Maybe you are right, HR numbers went down after MLB got serious about 'roids. Maybe steroids many of the HR became doubles, triples, or even fly outs. But I am not exactly sure that one play can change a whole series of games. In the NFL you get one game, one shot.

Even if you steal signals and you know what's coming, if a player doesn't have the "coordination and quick reaction" to make the play, that won't happen in football either. That works both ways. If you've got a guy on first and you steal the 3rd base coaches signals, then you know what's coming (bunt, steal, hit and run, suicide, etc.). That's been going on since the dawn of time. Again, football is much different than baseball. If coaches know that a blitz is coming, the can adjust quickly and call an audible. And if they know it is going to be a run, the can stuff the box and have a much better chance of stopping the player. I remember the game when the Pats got their a$$es whipped the Fins stole their signal. All of a sudden, the god-like Brady became mere mortal and was sacked hard many times. Signal stealing in the NFL is like signal stealing in baseball, if you know what is coming it becomes alot eassier to lay off balls and go after the one right down the middle.


And if you feel the impact is lessened because people only bat one at a time, then what if your pitcher, who touches the ball on each and every play, is on the juice? Coaches in all sports get paid good money to look at film and scout a teams strenghts and weaknesses. On many occassions, these guys already know what's coming by the formation of the offense. But if an athlete is faster and stronger than his opponent because of a drug, then that's an uneven playing field any way you slice it.I agree with you on this one. Pitchers on the juice is much worse than a hitter.

Also, in the NFL, you almost have constant player movement. Guys get cut, traded or released and are picked up by a rival team for information on that opponent. I don't think asking that (released) player about his former team's tendencies and signals is off limits.

I don't think the realeased palyers are a big deal, they don't know much of palybook. A lot of players don't know much about the play being called other than their role.

[Jay]

Sen. Specter is no hero. He's a Pittsburgh fan who's using his official position and authority to bully the Patriots and the NFL. Hardly what I want my Senator doing.

I don't think anyone can question Bellichick's defensive genius. As a HC, he lucked into the greatest QB's of his generation in Brady. Stealing signals has been going on in every sport and it just sounds like sour grapes to me. If peopel want to preserve the integrity of the game(s), then steroids is a far larger issue.

If all this is, is sour grapes, then why destroy the tapes? Really think about it, ask yourself that and think about it. If you can't seem to grasp it, maybe try to go back and reread this thread.

I agree with what another poster said about this whole situation.. it stinks.

[Dodger12]

#1 he's an eagle fan

I stand corrected. I misread the article in the thread where it referenced the Steelers/Pats game. My bad.

#2 how do you know why he's doing this?


Just my opinion and no slight against yours.

[Dodger12]

If all this is, is sour grapes, then why destroy the tapes? Really think about it, ask yourself that and think about it. If you can't seem to grasp it, maybe try to go back and reread this thread.

I agree with what another poster said about this whole situation.. it stinks.

Jey, don't get me wrong, the NFL should have never destroyed the tapes and it raises allot of issues. There's also no question the Pats cheated. Did the NFL try and cover up the extent of the cheating before it got uglier for the NFL. Sure. I just don't think anything will come of it but I also won't downplay how good Brady and the Patriots were. The shame of it for guys like Brady is probably that they didn't have to cheat to win.

[BraveHeartFan]

Nothing is going to come of this cause I feel like the video guy doesn't have anything concrete to give up and show. So this will be looked at, and nothing more.

[DCfaninDC]

Nothing is going to come of this cause I feel like the video guy doesn't have anything concrete to give up and show. So this will be looked at, and nothing more.Somehow I think it is the opposite. I think Specter "might have" ;) seen the tapes in Walsh's possession and knows that he can make a case out of it.

[tyke1doe]

I don't think anyone ever argued with you on those two points. The rest of your tripe was just Goodell pandering.

I think you did take exception to point 2. You asked why Goodell didn't interview Walsh and determine whether he had additional information, i.e., tapes. And I said it was because there was no reason for Goodell to believe that Walsh had NFL/Patriots property.

As for Goodell pandering, that's your opinion. I've already stated that I didn't agree with everything with respect to Goodell and his punishments. See Wade Wilson.


He said, he said, yes... but that doesn't mean Walsh won't be more credible than Belichick.

But I never compared Walsh with Belichick. I compared Walsh with Goodell with respect to arguing why Goodell didn't interview Walsh.

[tyke1doe]

Ok maybe I wasn't clear on how to ask the question. What I meant was, what if they haven't really given the NFL all the tapes they had. I mean how can the NFL make sure that the Pats don't have back-up copies they can use later?

Also, if you caught a person cheating and think he is not honest to the game, how can they beleive anything he says from that point on?

To be honest, I really disliked Belicheck, but always thought he was one of the great ones and very smart. Now, hmmm...he is looking more like a Jim Haslett as far as I am concerned.

But that's why Goodell said earlier if any additional information surfaces, he would issue even more harsher fines.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.

[theogt]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.This whole ordeal just smells funny.

[DCfaninDC]

But that's why Goodell said earlier if any additional information surfaces, he would issue even more harsher fines. But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

[peplaw06]

I think you did take exception to point 2. You asked why Goodell didn't interview Walsh and determine whether he had additional information, i.e., tapes. And I said it was because there was no reason for Goodell to believe that Walsh had NFL/Patriots property.That's not what you said in point 2. You said that Walsh took the tapes improperly.

I don't give a rats *** if he took the tapes "improperly." If he has em I want to see em. I don't think the fact that he took them improperly, if he did, has any relevance to whether Goodell should have been investigating to see if he indeed had them.

As for Goodell pandering, that's your opinion. I've already stated that I didn't agree with everything with respect to Goodell and his punishments. See Wade Wilson. What is the angle which you compare the Wilson punishment to, for you not to agree with it?

I thought the only relevant point of comparison was in regards to how the Pats were punished.

But I never compared Walsh with Belichick. I compared Walsh with Goodell with respect to arguing why Goodell didn't interview Walsh.What does "he said, he said" have to do with Goodell?

If you're talking about Goodell and Walsh, then this comment -- Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said. -- makes zero sense.

[Bob Sacamano]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.

it's a government conspiracy, Bill Belichick is an alien, they don't want to upset him

[tyke1doe]

But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

But if you catch Speed Racer doing other illegal activities then you can arrest him and punish him with more than just a speeding ticket and the accompanying fine.

Thank you for the analogy because it works here too. :)

[Bob Sacamano]

But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

depends on what he admits to, if he says he smoked weed, cops can't do crap about it

but if he murdered someone, then that's another story

[khiladi]

Who in the world believes Roger Goodell anymore anyways? Last I heard, he was stating that the NFL had leads and they led to nothing, after proper investigation. When the story first happened, the NFL spokesman was saying that the Green Bay episode was never submitted for inspection in 2006 so they never bothered to investigate that lead. Goodell is trying to cover his tracts now, and he is looking like Roger Clemens right now.

I like how Goodell is saying that they were the one's who brought the facts to light. No, it was Mangini that did...

[lspain1]

This whole ordeal just smells funny.

It does have an odd feel to it. Goodell clearly has a responsibility for the "integrity of the game" but he also is responsible for the health and public image of the NFL as a whole. A case of this magnitude goes far beyond player misconduct and the two areas of responsibility might begin to conflict a bit. One thing is certain, and that is that Goodell has no desire for Congress to be investigating spygate in any way, shape or form.

We'll see....or perhaps we won't. ;)

[khiladi]

This whole thing is just hilarious...

All the defending of the Patriots in light of the ever growing inconsistencies...

[Bob Sacamano]

This whole thing is just hilarious...

All the defending of the Patriots in light of the ever growing inconsistencies...

who's doing that?

[khiladi]

who's doing that?

People like tyke1doe... I like the new angle:

Walsh shouldn't have stolen the tapes from the Patriots, because that is illegal..

Well, Bellichek shouldn't have stolen signals against NFL rules and used Walsh to illegally tape signals...

Seriously... Specter has already come out and said Goodell told him they knew as far back as 2000 that the Patriots were taping signals. Yet, we are suppose to believe Goodell when he said, we didn't investiagte further because we thought Bellichek gave us all the tapes, and only those were from 2006-2007...

Why anybody would defend Goodell or the Patriots anymore is just bizarre...

[tyke1doe]

That's not what you said in point 2. You said that Walsh took the tapes improperly.

But that point was connected to a greater point, i.e., that Goodell didn't interview Walsh because beyond he said/he said Goodell didn't or wouldn't have reason to believe that Walsh would have league property.


I don't give a rats *** if he took the tapes "improperly." If he has em I want to see em.

You keep repeating that as if Goodell knew he had them. He didn't. That's what the issue is.

I don't think the fact that he took them improperly, if he did, has any relevance to whether Goodell should have been investigating to see if he indeed had them.

Again, it presumes that Goodell had a reason to believe that Walsh had improperly acquired company property. I say he didn't have a reason to believe Walsh did so.


What is the angle which you compare the Wilson punishment to, for you not to agree with it?

I thought the only relevant point of comparison was in regards to how the Pats were punished.

I thought the Wilson punishment was excessive because he was a coach who had what appeared to be a legitimate reason for taking the drugs he did - male impotency, if I recall correctly.

But I did not make any connection or comparison between that punishment and the one Goodell administered toward the Patriots for Spygate.


What does "he said, he said" have to do with Goodell?

If you're talking about Goodell and Walsh, then this comment -- -- makes zero sense.

My bad. I'm using as my reference point all our conversations on this matter.

Our first debates on this issue (in another thread) had to do with Goodell interviewing Belichick and not interviewing Walsh.

I argued that Goodell didn't have any knowledge that Walsh had tapes and if Walsh did not have any tapes it would only amount to a he-said/he-said issue.

With respect to Specter, again, without the tapes it's still going to be a he-said/he-said. Yes, Walsh may appear to be more credible than Belichick, but so? That's the case is most, if not all, he-said/he-said situations.

Specter is already convinced the Pats and Belichick cheated. By hearing Walsh sans tapes is he may be convinced even more than Belichick cheated, but so what? What is he going to be able to do with that information?

Thus my comment.

[khiladi]

And the issue isn't just about Walsh. It is about the inconsistency of Goodell, and this is independent of Walsh...

For example, anybody that has been paying attention to what Spectre said would know that the primary reasoning for suspicion is because of the timeline of the destruction of the tapes. This has absolutely nothing to do with Walsh.

If I remember correctly, they received and destroyed the tapes after they gave the penalty to the Patriots. And it was done in a matter of a few days, which reveals haste, more than a real investigation.

[tyke1doe]

who's doing that?

In his mind, any attempt to understand why Goodell may have proceeded in this investigation the way he did amounts to "defending the Pats."

That would be troubling if we couldn't understand how simple minds operate. ;) :D

[khiladi]

In his mind, any attempt to understand why Goodell may have proceeded in this investigation the way he did amounts to "defending the Pats."

That would be troubling if we couldn't understand how simple minds operate. ;) :D


Your right, it isn't about defending the Pats, but it is about defending your ego. You spent so much time into defending the Pats, to the point you have dug yourself into a hole. Your trying to get out of the hole the wrong way, by making ridiculous arguments. You should just come clean and say, this whole thing is fishy... Goodell is no different than Clemens right now...

Keep thinking what your thinking, but it is quite clear that you haven't even been following the case, because you would have known that Walsh is just a side issue, as it concerns Spectre. This investigation isn't just predicated on Walsh... It is also about what Goodell said and did, without Walsh. It is a Goodell said, Goodell said issue.

[tyke1doe]

Your right, it isn't about defending the Pats, but it is about defending your ego. You spent so much time into defending the Pats, to the point you have dug yourself into a hole. Your trying to get out of the hole the wrong way, by making ridiculous arguments. You should just come clean and say, this whole thing is fishy... Goodell is no different than Clemens right now...

Keep thinking what your thinking, but it is quite clear that you haven't even been following the case, because you would have known that Walsh is just a side issue, as it concerns Spectre. This investigation isn't just predicated on Walsh... It is also about what Goodell said and did, without Walsh. It is a Goodell said, Goodell said issue.

Simple-minded response from a simple-minded boy/man.

But it is quite amusing how young/grown men get so bothered that someone has a contrary opinion on an issue, particularly on the Internet. :)

[Bob Sacamano]

In his mind, any attempt to understand why Goodell may have proceeded in this investigation the way he did amounts to "defending the Pats."

That would be troubling if we couldn't understand how simple minds operate. ;) :D

it happens all the time, that's why I was making sure he wasn't talking about me because I made that comment about Belichick

[Da Hammer]

Goodell has been a disgrace to the league ever since he became commissioner

[tyke1doe]

it happens all the time, that's why I was making sure he wasn't talking about me because I made that comment about Belichick

It almost seems like people are bothered because someone has a contrary opinion and sticks to it. (As if that's a novel concept?) :rolleyes:

I thought that is what fuels a discussion forum. :huh:

[Bob Sacamano]

It almost seems like people are bothered because someone has a contrary opinion and sticks to it. (As if that's a novel concept?) :rolleyes:

I thought that is what fuels a discussion forum. :huh:
:laugh2: I know, it's hilarious, and people make the differences bigger than need be, like we're insulting their mother's honor by disagreeing w/ them

[peplaw06]

But that point was connected to a greater point, i.e., that Goodell didn't interview Walsh because beyond he said/he said Goodell didn't or wouldn't have reason to believe that Walsh would have league property.

You keep repeating that as if Goodell knew he had them. He didn't. That's what the issue is. Again, it presumes that Goodell had a reason to believe that Walsh had improperly acquired company property. I say he didn't have a reason to believe Walsh did so.Seriously tyke? This reach is longer than Muhammad Ali's.

The tapes are secondary to information when Walsh is concerned. Goodell should have thoroughly interviewed Walsh simply because he had information. Whether or not Goodell believed he had tapes is no excuse.

I thought the Wilson punishment was excessive because he was a coach who had what appeared to be a legitimate reason for taking the drugs he did - male impotency, if I recall correctly.

But I did not make any connection or comparison between that punishment and the one Goodell administered toward the Patriots for Spygate.But that was unprecedented... Goodell punishing a coach. He hadn't done it before. He had an explanation for that one... coaches held to a higher standard... that was believable, because it was unprecedented. When you compare that with how Belichick (a coach) was punished for something that actually hurt the integrity of the game, then THAT'S when it became completely suspect. He didn't hold that coach to a higher standard.

My bad. I'm using as my reference point all our conversations on this matter.

Our first debates on this issue (in another thread) had to do with Goodell interviewing Belichick and not interviewing Walsh.

I argued that Goodell didn't have any knowledge that Walsh had tapes and if Walsh did not have any tapes it would only amount to a he-said/he-said issue.Yes... but like I said Walsh's credibility (if his testimony was opposed to Belichick's like we all suspect) is instantly higher because Belichick has already been caught.

With respect to Specter, again, without the tapes it's still going to be a he-said/he-said. Yes, Walsh may appear to be more credible than Belichick, but so? That's the case is most, if not all, he-said/he-said situations.Then why point out it's "he said/he said"? When you say that you imply that no one is more credible.

And no, a true "he said he said" doesn't have one side more credible than the other. That's the meaning of the term. You can't determine what's true because all you have is two people's opposing testimony and both are equally credible.

Specter is already convinced the Pats and Belichick cheated. By hearing Walsh sans tapes is he may be convinced even more than Belichick cheated, but so what? What is he going to be able to do with that information? EVERYBODY'S convinced the Pats cheated!! Where Specter got involved was with Goodell's handling of the investigation. If Specter hears from Walsh, with or without tapes, the point of the inquiry is to see what the extent of the cheating was, and if Goodell acted properly in the investigation and punishment. Walsh can testify to what, if any, contact Goodell had with him, and how thoroughly Goodell investigated the matter.

I really don't understand how you could miss the point so consistently.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it's a government conspiracy, Bill Belichick is an alien, they don't want to upset him

think about it. the reason why the NFL and congress is having to extend indemnity is becasue of the contract stipulation that Walsh has with the patriots. if the pats had released him from that tere would be no need for them to do that. that is not a conspiracy in any way shape or form.

now typically when you are trying to exonerate yourself, you address it head on similar to the way that Clemens is attempting to convince people of his innocence.

Instead the Pats have not released him and while that proves nothing in and of itself it sure makes me wonder why they have not.

[jimmy40]

The Patriots cheated against the Steelers? Good.

[tyke1doe]

Seriously tyke? This reach is longer than Muhammad Ali's.

Well, seeing how Ali doesn't have much of a reach now, I don't think this image works in your favor. ;)


The tapes are secondary to information when Walsh is concerned. Goodell should have thoroughly interviewed Walsh simply because he had information. Whether or not Goodell believed he had tapes is no excuse.

I disagree. But we've already argued this in previous threads.


But that was unprecedented... Goodell punishing a coach. He hadn't done it before. He had an explanation for that one... coaches held to a higher standard... that was believable, because it was unprecedented. When you compare that with how Belichick (a coach) was punished for something that actually hurt the integrity of the game, then THAT'S when it became completely suspect. He didn't hold that coach to a higher standard.

And I don't disagree. I've said previously that a suspension would have been in order, and I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Besides I really have never argued against a harsher punishment except with respect to the difficulty of stripping the Patriots of their Super Bowl wins.


Yes... but like I said Walsh's credibility (if his testimony was opposed to Belichick's like we all suspect) is instantly higher because Belichick has already been caught.

But I focusing more on what Specter can do with that testimony. Without evidence, it will be more on the order of Clemens and his trainer. One says one thing, the other denies. We may believe the trainer but as far as punishment, the evidence won't support it even if the suspicions remain.


Then why point out it's "he said/he said"? When you say that you imply that no one is more credible.

And no, a true "he said he said" doesn't have one side more credible than the other. That's the meaning of the term. You can't determine what's true because all you have is two people's opposing testimony and both are equally credible.

I don't think I said no one is more credible. I think I said without the tapes it will be a he said/he said.

At issue here isn't just getting to the bottom of Spygate and how extensive it was, but assigning appropriate punishment. It has already been mentioned that the Pats spying went back to 2001. So if Walsh has tapes, then that will work to his favor in terms of further punishing the Pats (which Goodell said/hinted he would do if Walsh's claims are true). If Walsh doesn't have tapes, then nothing is going to come of his claims, especially when he says he has more and it's later discovered that he didn't.


EVERYBODY'S convinced the Pats cheated!!

That's not in dispute. Even I am convinced they cheated.


Where Specter got involved was with Goodell's handling of the investigation. If Specter hears from Walsh, with or without tapes, the point of the inquiry is to see what the extent of the cheating was, and if Goodell acted properly in the investigation and punishment. Walsh can testify to what, if any, contact Goodell had with him, and how thoroughly Goodell investigated the matter.

I really don't understand how you could miss the point so consistently.


I'm not missing that point. I'm merely saying that it won't really amount to anything in the long run. We already know that the Pats cheated. We already know (and knew before Specter's inquiry) that the Pats cheated as far back as 2001.

If Walsh doesn't produce any tapes or is found to be a liar since he has claimed he has evidence, do you think those who question Goodell's handling of this affair are going to cut him slack? No.

Hence, my comment ...



Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said.

But I'm waiting for these tapes Walsh is suppose to have. Will he go Royal Flush or is he just bluffing?

We'll soon find out.

I think you keep creating a scenario in which you think I'm missing the point. I'm not. The issue here is more than just what Walsh knows or the extent of the Pats cheating ways (which we know went back as far as 2001) but additional punishment.

That's what I'm talking about. And that's what others are hoping for too when they suggest that the Pats should have to forfeit their Super Bowl wins.

[Yakuza Rich]

But that's why Goodell said earlier if any additional information surfaces, he would issue even more harsher fines.

Yes, but it's blatantly obvious that Goodell had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, much less to investigate it further. It wasn't until Specter wanted to bring him forward to ask him about why he destroyed the tapes.....which Goodell's excuse doesn't make any sense and shows that Goodell didn't care to investigate the matter....that Goodell dropped the line that if additional info surfaces, he would issue harsher fines.

What Goodell did means that he's not very bright or he's a liar who tried to sweep this under the rug. As it appears that the Pats' violations are much more serious, that makes Goodell look either more stupid or more of a cover up artist.

Either way, the league and the fans can't afford to have a commissioner who is either this dumb or this much of a crook.





YAKUZA

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, but it's blatantly obvious that Goodell had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, much less to investigate it further. It wasn't until Specter wanted to bring him forward to ask him about why he destroyed the tapes.....which Goodell's excuse doesn't make any sense and shows that Goodell didn't care to investigate the matter....that Goodell dropped the line that if additional info surfaces, he would issue harsher fines.

What Goodell did means that he's not very bright or he's a liar who tried to sweep this under the rug. As it appears that the Pats' violations are much more serious, that makes Goodell look either more stupid or more of a cover up artist.

Either way, the league and the fans can't afford to have a commissioner who is either this dumb or this much of a crook.





YAKUZA

I think Goodell did it to postpone it till after the season, so as to conduct the full investigatin now as opposed to during the hectic football season

I don't think he did it because he's evil, just because he didn't want that to be the mark of the season, and that he could have more time to get all the facts

[SquiggDoggs]

I can't believe I took heat for talking about Romo making the pro bowl next year...who cares about the patriots!

[Yakuza Rich]

I think Goodell did it to postpone it till after the season, so as to conduct the full investigatin now as opposed to during the hectic football season

I don't think he did it because he's evil, just because he didn't want that to be the mark of the season, and that he could have more time to get all the facts


I think destroying the tapes debunks that theory.







YAKUZA

[peplaw06]

But I focusing more on what Specter can do with that testimony. Without evidence, it will be more on the order of Clemens and his trainer. One says one thing, the other denies. We may believe the trainer but as far as punishment, the evidence won't support it even if the suspicions remain.This is nothing like Clemens and McNamee. It would only be comparable had Clemens previously tested positive for steroids.

I don't think I said no one is more credible. I think I said without the tapes it will be a he said/he said. That's what that phrase means!!!

You know, post after post I have read from you, and I keep thinking, "he can't be this dense." But now I'm convinced you are in fact this dense.

At issue here isn't just getting to the bottom of Spygate and how extensive it was, but assigning appropriate punishment. It has already been mentioned that the Pats spying went back to 2001. So if Walsh has tapes, then that will work to his favor in terms of further punishing the Pats (which Goodell said/hinted he would do if Walsh's claims are true). If Walsh doesn't have tapes, then nothing is going to come of his claims, especially when he says he has more and it's later discovered that he didn't. Specter isn't going to impose any more punishment on the Pats. Congress doesn't have that specific authority to punish just one team. That's left to the Commish through the CBA.

Specter only only has authority over the league as a whole, and that means he wants to get to the bottom of the league's actions, specifically Goodell's actions.

And you can't unilaterally say that nothing more will come of Spygate if Walsh doesn't have tapes. The tapes are NOT the end all be all.

[Bob Sacamano]

I think destroying the tapes debunks that theory.







YAKUZA

whatever

back to government conspiracy

[peplaw06]

I think destroying the tapes debunks that theory. Plus the fact that Goodell has never said such a thing. Some people just have to make excuses for him.

[theogt]

I think Goodell did it to postpone it till after the season, so as to conduct the full investigatin now as opposed to during the hectic football seasonSomeone just pulled this one out of their ***.

[Bob Sacamano]

Plus the fact that Goodell has never said such a thing. Some people just have to make excuses for him.

you don't think Goodell was trying to make the season the focus, and not spy-gate? I'm trying to look at all options instead of choosing to stick w/ Goodell is an idiot, or he's Hitler

how's your mother?

[Bob Sacamano]

Someone just pulled this one out of their ***.

it's just as good as

"I don't know what it is, but Goodell is hiding it"

[theogt]

it's just as good as

"I don't know what it is, but Goodell is hiding it"Really? Because one is based on the thought that his actions were irrational. And the other is an irrational thought based on his actions.

[Bob Sacamano]

And the other is an irrational thought based on his actions.

that would be you guys

the point is that neither of us know what Goodell's true intentions were

[tyke1doe]

This is nothing like Clemens and McNamee. It would only be comparable had Clemens previously tested positive for steroids.

Again, you miss the point (why am I not surprised).

The point, counselor, is this:

Right now Clemens/McNamee is a he said/he said argument.
But if it can be proven - through evidence - that Clemens lied, he faces perjury (punishment) because he will have lied under oath.




That's what that phrase means!!!

You know, post after post I have read from you, and I keep thinking, "he can't be this dense." But now I'm convinced you are in fact this dense.

Please, spare me the condescension, Pepelaw. It's unbecoming you, and it reeks of immaturity.

You know as well as I do that people can draw conclusions from he said/she said comments.

While he said/he said is not an argument of evidence, people draw conclusions based on who they think is more credible.

If you can't understand that point, then maybe you need to check your own "density." ;)


Specter isn't going to impose any more punishment on the Pats. Congress doesn't have that specific authority to punish just one team. That's left to the Commish through the CBA.

I don't think I said Congress was going to punish the Pats. I think I said if any further information comes from this, the Commissioner will hand down a harsher punishment.



And you can't unilaterally say that nothing more will come of Spygate if Walsh doesn't have tapes. The tapes are NOT the end all be all.

To Goodell they are. And since you acknowledge he is the one who doles out the punishment, no tapes, no additional punishment.

[Yakuza Rich]

you don't think Goodell was trying to make the season the focus, and not spy-gate? I'm trying to look at all options instead of choosing to stick w/ Goodell is an idiot, or he's Hitler

Then why would you destroy the evidence? According to Goodell he was worried about "security issues" which makes no sense when the NFL has the tapes and just has to lock them up.

If Goodell really wanted to focus on the season and investigate the matter later, anybody with above room temperature IQ would have kept the tapes locked up and THEN do the investigation when the season is over.




YAKUZA

[tyke1doe]

Yes, but it's blatantly obvious that Goodell had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, much less to investigate it further.

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined? :confused: :rolleyes:


It wasn't until Specter wanted to bring him forward to ask him about why he destroyed the tapes.....which Goodell's excuse doesn't make any sense and shows that Goodell didn't care to investigate the matter....that Goodell dropped the line that if additional info surfaces, he would issue harsher fines.

Uh, you're wrong. Note the date of the article.

If Pats don't comply with Goodell's order, more sanctions likely coming
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: September 16, 2007, 11:11 AM ET

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered the New England Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action of coach Bill Belichick and the franchise, according to sources familiar with the details of Goodell's private communication with the team, ESPN's Chris Mortensen has learned.


If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, the sources said.

Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.

If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.



What Goodell did means that he's not very bright or he's a liar who tried to sweep this under the rug. As it appears that the Pats' violations are much more serious, that makes Goodell look either more stupid or more of a cover up artist.

No, it doesn't.

First, Goodell already said he had word that the Pats taped games as far back as 2001. But knowing that they did and proving that they did are two different animals. They had proof that the Pats taped the Jets game.

Second, you think after the Pats got caught taping the Jets game by the league they couldn't have gone on a "destroy" mission of their own?

Third, Goodell had the Pats turn over all illegal tapes. The Pats did. Now, they may have had other tapes, but that's why Goodell said - as the article implies - if he discovers that other tapes exist, he will be even harsher in his punishment because it will indicate that the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes. Therefore, he destroys the tapes he received from the Pats and then reserves the right to punish them further if tapes do appear.

Fourth, I don't think Goodell, as commissioner, has subpoena powers (maybe Pepelaw can address this) so he can't just go into the Patriots organization and legally demand that they turn over tapes. Remember, this isn't a legal proceeding where an investigator would have subpoena powers.

Either way, the league and the fans can't afford to have a commissioner who is either this dumb or this much of a crook.


I think that's just a silly opinion to say Goodell is a crook. He may not have handled the tape situation the best, but I can understand his reasoning.

[Yakuza Rich]

that would be you guys

the point is that neither of us know what Goodell's true intentions were

Yes, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that chances are he closed the investigation.






YAKUZA

[peplaw06]

Again, you miss the point (why am I not surprised). :laugh2:

I don't think you even know what your point is.


Right now Clemens/McNamee is a he said/he said argument.
But if it can be proven - through evidence - that Clemens lied, he faces perjury (punishment) because he will have lied under oath.What does that have to do with anything in the context of this conversation?

Oh and guess what... Clemens - McNamee isn't even a he said/he said argument anymore. It's a he said/they said... they being McNamee and Pettitte.

Please, spare me the condescension, Pepelaw. It's unbecoming you, and it reeks of immaturity. Oh please, you've been condescending since day 1 of your "debating" with me. Immaturity?? The constant use of the word "counselor" and intentional misspelling of my s/n, which for some reason you apparently think is funny.... think that's mature?

I only let it go because I'm not a whiner. But if you want to call me out for returning fire, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Need a Kleenex? How 'bout some vasoline? My guess is you need both, but more of the latter.

While he said/he said is not an argument of evidence, people draw conclusions based on who they think is more credible.It's cute watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts.... Like watching a baby horse trying to stand up.

I don't think I said Congress was going to punish the Pats. I think I said if any further information comes from this, the Commissioner will hand down a harsher punishment.This is your comment... At issue here isn't just getting to the bottom of Spygate and how extensive it was, but assigning appropriate punishment. We're talking about why Congress is getting involved. It ain't to try to further punish the Pats. It's to see whether Goodell acted properly.

And Goodell may indeed end up issuing further punishment. But it's embarrassing for the league that it will have taken Congressional involvement for that to come about.


To Goodell they are. And since you acknowledge he is the one who doles out the punishment, no tapes, no additional punishment.The tapes are the end all be all to Goodell? How do you know that? has he ever said that? Are you saying he would disregard any information that came from Walsh if he didn't have tapes. Yeah, that'll end the speculation that there's a cover-up.:rolleyes:

[peplaw06]

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined? :confused: :rolleyes:Probably to try to ease the public scrutiny. It worked... for about 6 months.

First, Goodell already said he had word that the Pats taped games as far back as 2001. But knowing that they did and proving that they did are two different animals. They had proof that the Pats taped the Jets game.So let me get this straight? Goodell has word that they taped back since 2001... then he refuses to interview the guy who worked for the Pats, even though he knew about him, because he didn't think anything was there? Couldn't that guy possibly help him prove this?

With every attempt you make to spin this, I become more convinced that I'm right.

Third, Goodell had the Pats turn over all illegal tapes. The Pats did. Now, they may have had other tapes, but that's why Goodell said - as the article implies - if he discovers that other tapes exist, he will be even harsher in his punishment because it will indicate that the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes. Therefore, he destroys the tapes he received from the Pats and then reserves the right to punish them further if tapes do appear.How can you say conclusively, "The Pats did [turn over all illegal tapes]," then in the next sentence say "Now they may have had other tapes"? Does that really make sense to you when you type it?

And yeah that plan sounds perfect... let's allow the Pats to turn over the tapes on their own. When they turn over 6 (!!!!!) tapes, that buys them time to destroy the rest, decreasing the chances that Goodell ever discovering that other tapes exist. If you believe that the Pats only had 6 tapes in their "library," I've got a nice piece of land with your name on it. It's got a great view of the Nebraska mountains.

Fourth, I don't think Goodell as commissioner has subpoena powers (maybe Pepelaw can address this) so he can't just go into the Patriots organization and legally demand that they turn over tapes. Remember, this isn't a legal proceeding where the investigator would have subpoena powers. Are you serious? The commissioner doesn't have to have subpoena power to force a team under his charge to follow his rules or the rules of the league.

I think that's just a silly opinion to say Goodell is a crook. He may not have handled the tape situation the best, but I can understand his reasoning.I fully understand how you can understand his reasoning. You're irrational.

[Yakuza Rich]

If he had NO intention of investigating the matter to begin with, why were the Patriots stripped off a draft choice and Belchick and Kraft both fined? :confused: :rolleyes:.

I'm talking about the extent of the Patriots cheating. Goodell's actions dictate that he was only interested in investigating the cheating against the Jets. Goodell later said that he believed it was isolated to just the Jets game :bang2:

The rational way of investigating the Patriots would be to have the NFL look into the Patriots possibly doing this beforehand. Instead, from Goodell and his stooges mouths, the NFL basically asked the Pats to turn themselves in.


you're wrong. Note the date of the article.

Yes, then the Pats "turned in the evidence" and the case was closed. He had zero intention of finding out if the Pats cheated outside of the Jets game because in his mind the Patriots "complied" with the NFL. Goodell himself said that he believed it was an isolate incident to the Jets game and then destroyed the tapes.

I could only take it that Goodell felt that the case was closed because in his mind, it was an isolated incident...the Pats "complied" with what they were looking for...and he destroyed the tapes.

Sounds every bit like Goodell thought the case was closed and had no intention of investigating it any futher.

Because if he did have the intention of looking at this further, he would've kept the tapes just in case more evidence came along so he could use that against the Pats.

It's kind of one of those things that anybody with half of brain does.

If Goodell isn't a crook, then he's too stupid to be the commissioner and the league should start looking elsewhere.






YAKUZA

[tyke1doe]

Then why would you destroy the evidence? According to Goodell he was worried about "security issues" which makes no sense when the NFL has the tapes and just has to lock them up.

It makes no sense if you're fixed on forcing his actions into what you think.

Here are the issues:

1. Jay Glazer already got a copy of the tape. So much for security.
2. Goodell doesn't know whether copies of the tape exist so security really isn't going to do you any good if copies exist.
3. The Pats (who could have destroyed the tapes prior to receiving the memo from Goodell to turn over all their tapes) gave Goodell what they said they had.
4. Goodell knows that the Pats have been taping other teams. So let's say he receives only tapes from the 2006 and 2007 season. He says, "Okay, this is all you have?" The Pats say, "Yes." And Goodell says, "Okay, these are going in the fire." He has put the Patriots on notice that if anything else surfaces, they are responsible because they said those were all the tapes. It is the Pats responsibility if Walsh has a copy of other tapes because they told Goodell that all they had was what they gave him.

That makes sense to me.


If Goodell really wanted to focus on the season and investigate the matter later, anybody with above room temperature IQ would have kept the tapes locked up and THEN do the investigation when the season is over.

Pulease. Then people would have been crying over delayed justice or stripping the Pats of a first round pick that the Commissioner knows would have been pick No. 31 in the draft.

What we know is that the NFL caught the Pats illegally taping the Jets game. That is why the punishment was handed out, because of that game.

As I've illustrated with the article above, Goodell reserved the right to hand down additional punishment if any other tapes surfaced. If anybody should be sweating, it's not Goodell. It's the Patriots. Goodell suggested as far back as September, that if the Pats lied about the existence of other tapes, he would hammer them even further. He didn't just conjure this up because Specter initiated an investigation.

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that chances are he closed the investigation.






YAKUZA

I don't think Goodell is that stupid to think that destroying a couple of tapes was going to make people forget about this forever, the word was out, there is no degrees of cheating, no matter if you only have 2 tape of team's walk-throughs and defensive signals, or 200, cheating is cheating, suggesting that Goodell is somehow trying to mask the extent of the Pat's cheating is bordering on Roswell conspiracy

it makes more sense that he was trying to bury spy-gate during the season so that it wasn't the whole focus of it, Lord knows the Pats get enough already, and did get enough, w/ their pursuit of perfection, I think Goodell closed the investigation during the season to possibly visit it after

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2:

I don't think you even know what your point is.

Oh, I know what my point is. But nice try at diversion. ;)


What does that have to do with anything in the context of this conversation?

Oh and guess what... Clemens - McNamee isn't even a he said/he said argument anymore. It's a he said/they said... they being McNamee and Pettitte.

Nothing, other than it was an example of He said/He said vs. He said/Evidence.


Oh please, you've been condescending since day 1 of your "debating" with me. Immaturity?? The constant use of the word "counselor" and intentional misspelling of my s/n, which for some reason you apparently think is funny.... think that's mature?

Actually, counselor is a term befitting your title as a lawyer. That's why I use it. But if you have your feelings on your sleeves, I can see why you would take offense. It wasn't intended as an offense.

As for my misspelling of your s/n, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was misspelling it. :( That was an honest mistake.

But back to condescending, I think you understand what I'm talking about. He said/he said is exactly that, but that doesn't mean people can't draw conclusions and infer credibility from he said/he said. You know this, counselor.


I only let it go because I'm not a whiner. But if you want to call me out for returning fire, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Need a Kleenex? How 'bout some vasoline? My guess is you need both, but more of the latter.

I don't even know what your later paragraph even means. But I can give as good as I can take. So don't worry about me. I figure you'd rather discuss than toss implied insults. Maybe I was wrong.


It's cute watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts.... Like watching a baby horse trying to stand up.

Yes, people can't draw conclusions from He said/He said or determine that one party is more credible than the other. :rolleyes:

Watching you choke on gnats and swallow camels is about as amusing as you watching a baby horse trying to stand up. :D ;)


This is your comment... We're talking about why Congress is getting involved. It ain't to try to further punish the Pats. It's to see whether Goodell acted properly.

And Goodell may indeed end up issuing further punishment. But it's embarrassing for the league that it will have taken Congressional involvement for that to come about.

I've initially said Congress doesn't have any business in this issue anyway.

But Specter already thinks Goodell didn't act properly. So? He talks to Goodell and he reiterates what he thought initially, i.e., he's not buying Goodell's reason for destroying the tape.

So what more does that tell us that we didn't already know? :rolleyes:


The tapes are the end all be all to Goodell? How do you know that? has he ever said that? Are you saying he would disregard any information that came from Walsh if he didn't have tapes. Yeah, that'll end the speculation that there's a cover-up.:rolleyes:

And you quizzed me about understanding He said/He said. :rolleyes:

Without the tapes, it amounts to what Walsh says versus what the Pats say.

[theogt]

POSTED 8:37 p.m. EST, February 14, 2008
OTHER TEAMS SITTING ON MORE SPYGATE EVIDENCE?

A source tells us that there's a strong belief in league circles that multiple NFL teams are aware of evidence that might or might not have been turned over to the the league by the Patriots in connection with the Spygate scandal, and that such evidence could be disclosed if one or more of said teams conclude that the league isn't doing enough to investigate the situation.

Of course, it's unclear whether the league is aware of such evidence because it's unclear what the league has. Or, more accurately, had.

One thing that isn't unclear is that there were indeed reports last year that the Pats' practice of videotaping defensive coaching signals dated back to 2000. We now recall Chris Mortensen of ESPN explaining this fact, and also pointing out that Pats coach Bill Belichick claimed that he believed that the practice fell within the scope of the rules.

With that said, we still can't recall an affirmative statement from the league in Octboer 2007 (as reported by the AP on Tuesday) that the taping dated back to 2000. If we were cynics, we might think that the league engaged in a deliberate P.R. ploy to put the word out in this regard a day before the meeting between Commissioner Roger Goodell and Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), so that Goodell's disclosure to Specter -- and subsequent disclosure to the public -- that the taping dated back to 2000 wouldn't be mistakenly met with dropping jaws.

It's a good thing we're not cynics.

But even if that's what happened, we can't say we blame the league for refreshing everyone's memory before giving Specter a nugget that he might have otherwise been able to paint as new information.

[tyke1doe]

Probably to try to ease the public scrutiny. It worked... for about 6 months.

Yeah, because it's not like everyone stopped complaining about Goodell's "lax" punishment over those 6 months? :rolleyes:


So let me get this straight? Goodell has word that they taped back since 2001... then he refuses to interview the guy who worked for the Pats, even though he knew about him, because he didn't think anything was there? Couldn't that guy possibly help him prove this?



If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us," Goodell said, "yes, we'll look at it.

"We've had people come to us over the last six months with material that we pursued and it didn't lead to anything."

Among the things the league wants to talk to Walsh about is a recent Boston Herald report that a member of the Patriots' video staff taped the St. Louis Rams' pregame walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI.

"We were aware of this before," Goodell said. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told [by the Patriots], I reserve the right to reopen it.


"The staffs are talking about making sure [Walsh] has the ability to talk and what information he might have."




With every attempt you make to spin this, I become more convinced that I'm right.

I'm not surprised that you think you're right.


How can you say conclusively, "The Pats did [turn over all illegal tapes]," then in the next sentence say "Now they may have had other tapes"? Does that really make sense to you when you type it?


I'm merely going by what the Commissioner said. He said he told the Pats to turn over the illegal tapes. He said they did.
Now maybe the Pats didn't turn over all the tapes (I don't know, but let's assume they didn't) but that puts them under greater scrutiny because if that's the case, they will have lied to Goodell.
That's the point I was trying to make.


And yeah that plan sounds perfect... let's allow the Pats to turn over the tapes on their own. When they turn over 6 (!!!!!) tapes, that buys them time to destroy the rest, decreasing the chances that Goodell ever discovering that other tapes exist. If you believe that the Pats only had 6 tapes in their "library," I've got a nice piece of land with your name on it. It's got a great view of the Nebraska mountains.

I find this comment interesting in light of a point you attempt to make below.


Are you serious? The commissioner doesn't have to have subpoena power to force a team under his charge to follow his rules or the rules of the league.

He did force the team to follow his rules and the rules of the league - hence ordering them to turn over the tapes and penalizing the Patriots.
But he can't go storming into the Patriots office without a subpoena. I don't know if he has that power anyway. And, yes, that would make a difference.

And I find it interesting that you, on the one hand, chastize Goodell for allowing the Patriots to simply comply with his order to hand over the tapes and then expect the Pats to just hand over everything without a subpoena, as if Goodell had the authority to barge into their offices and confiscate all tapes. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, NFL teams have libraries full of tapes. Having tapes of games isn't illegal. The issue is taping signals during a game. We're not talking about merely game tapes. We're talking about tapes where you see illegal filming of signals during a game.


I fully understand how you can understand his reasoning. You're irrational.

And yet you continue to argue with me. Doesn't say too much about your rationality either, unless you're trying desparately to prove something. ;)

[Bob Sacamano]

And yet you continue to argue with me. Doesn't say too much about your rationality either, unless you're trying desparately to prove something. ;)

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

very rational

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!":laugh2:

[tyke1doe]

I'm talking about the extent of the Patriots cheating. Goodell's actions dictate that he was only interested in investigating the cheating against the Jets. Goodell later said that he believed it was isolated to just the Jets game :bang2:

He only had evidence that it occurred in the Jets game because Mangeni (spelling?) ratted out Belichick and the league caught the Pats video guy violating the league policy.

Again, I don't think we fans know what exactly an illegally made tape vs. a legally made tape looks like. I know Jay Glazer aired one on the FOX program, but I don't remember what that shot looked like. So I think there's a lot of guess work as to this issue.

I remember Goodell saying he saw some tapes and couldn't determine whether they were illegal tapes or not.


The rational way of investigating the Patriots would be to have the NFL look into the Patriots possibly doing this beforehand. Instead, from Goodell and his stooges mouths, the NFL basically asked the Pats to turn themselves in.

Again, I think we're presuming a lot of things here.

First, I asked the question about subpoena powers because unless Goodell has subpoena powers and an enforcement branch to execute search warrants and confiscate team materials, that just doesn't sound plausible or feasible.

Second, Goodell does serve at the pleasure of the owners. Even though he runs the league, he doesn't have the same authority a police investigator has in gathering or collecting evidence.

Third, I don't quite understand your point. Look into it beforehand? The incident came to the attention of the league when Mangeni (spelling?) brought it to the league's attention, and the league caught the Pats with their hands in the cookie jar. How would the league have looked into it beforehand when there was a particular incident that brought this transgression to light? :confused:



Yes, then the Pats "turned in the evidence" and the case was closed. He had zero intention of finding out if the Pats cheated outside of the Jets game because in his mind the Patriots "complied" with the NFL. Goodell himself said that he believed it was an isolate incident to the Jets game and then destroyed the tapes.

I could only take it that Goodell felt that the case was closed because in his mind, it was an isolated incident...the Pats "complied" with what they were looking for...and he destroyed the tapes.

Sounds every bit like Goodell thought the case was closed and had no intention of investigating it any futher.

Because if he did have the intention of looking at this further, he would've kept the tapes just in case more evidence came along so he could use that against the Pats.

It's kind of one of those things that anybody with half of brain does.

If Goodell isn't a crook, then he's too stupid to be the commissioner and the league should start looking elsewhere.




That's not what the Chris Mortensen story indicates. I remember Peplaw asking me for a link to the story of Goodell suggesting he would impose further penalties. I had to search to find the story and did so. Granted, it's an on-background story, but it was offered in September and appears consistent with Goodell's actions (both in evaluating information that has been coming to him throughout the season and his statement to impose further sanctions/penalties against the Pats if hard evidence surfaces.)

[tyke1doe]

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

very rational

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!":laugh2:

LOL.

Folks like to toss the "irrational" line as if it's a trump card.

Then, again, whether JFK's or MLK's assassination or Roswell or the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks, Americans love a good cover-up and conspiracy theory.

[SultanOfSix]

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

Actually, it's Goodell who has yet to provide a rational explanation for why he destroyed evidence, which in 99% of all cases is what is done when a conspiracy needs to be covered up. Therefore, the default position is to assume the most likely reason unless a very strong reason is given otherwise, which Goodell has failed to do.

[VietCowboy]

:popcorn:

[Bob Sacamano]

Actually, it's Goodell who has yet to provide a rational explanation for why he destroyed evidence, which in 99% of all cases is what is done when a conspiracy needs to be covered up. Therefore, the default position is to assume the most likely reason unless a very strong reason is given otherwise, which Goodell has failed to do.

please, don't throw percentages around, unless you actually did the math, they're all made up

and what exactly is Goodell covering up?

[SultanOfSix]

please, don't throw percentages around

and what exactly is Goodell covering up?

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.

[Bob Sacamano]

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.

oh, so if you have no idea, it must be an evil conspiracy

gotcha

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!"

and who exactly does Goodell have to unburden himself to? you? :lmao:

[SultanOfSix]

oh, so if you have no idea, it must be an evil conspiracy

gotcha

"the terrorists have entered our imagination!"

Boy, some people have problems reading and assuming illogical positions.

My lack of knowledge of what he is "hiding" (if he is) doesn't prohibit me from assuming the most likely default position, which somehow got turned into a strawman, not surprisingly. :rolleyes:

[tyke1doe]

Did you read what I wrote?

I have no idea, but that's the default position until a "rational" explanation is given. The burden is on him to give a substantial enough reason otherwise.


And who determines "substantial enough reason"? :confused:

[Bob Sacamano]

Boy, some people have problems reading and assuming illogical positions.

My lack of knowledge of what he is "hiding" (if he is) doesn't prohibit me from assuming the most likely default position, which somehow got turned into a strawman, not surprisingly. :rolleyes:

how convenient

yet you try to pass off this "default" bullchition, that contains no proof, as fact

[Bob Sacamano]

And who determines "substantial enough reason"? :confused:

still no rational explanation from the supposed rational members of the board

trying to cast doubt is cool, I should try it

[peplaw06]

Actually, counselor is a term befitting your title as a lawyer. That's why I use it. But if you have your feelings on your sleeves, I can see why you would take offense. It wasn't intended as an offense.

As for my misspelling of your s/n, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was misspelling it. :( That was an honest mistake. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're being facetious, and you know it.


Without the tapes, it amounts to what Walsh says versus what the Pats say.That's not all. It's what Walsh said, what the destroyed tapes said, what other teams say, what Mangini says, etc.

Yeah, because it's not like everyone stopped complaining about Goodell's "lax" punishment over those 6 months?
It wasn't creating headlines until the week before the Super Bowl. What fans say on message boards means little in the grand scheme of things.

He did force the team to follow his rules and the rules of the league - hence ordering them to turn over the tapes and penalizing the Patriots.
But he can't go storming into the Patriots office without a subpoena. I don't know if he has that power anyway. And, yes, that would make a difference. Do you know what a subpoena is? Hint: it's not a search warrant.

But Goodell doesn't have to have either FYI.

And I find it interesting that you, on the one hand, chastize Goodell for allowing the Patriots to simply comply with his order to hand over the tapes and then expect the Pats to just hand over everything without a subpoena, as if Goodell had the authority to barge into their offices and confiscate all tapes.This little tangent into whether Goodell has subpoena power is completely out of left field. Not to mention the fact that again you have misapplied terms used in the legal world. I thought I warned you about that.

Furthermore, NFL teams have libraries full of tapes. Having tapes of games isn't illegal. The issue is taping signals during a game. We're not talking about merely game tapes. We're talking about tapes where you see illegal filming of signals during a game. Is there a point somewhere in this paragraph?

And yet you continue to argue with me. Doesn't say too much about your rationality either, unless you're trying desparately to prove something.You're right... it is irrational to try to reason with the irrational. I guess I didn't want to believe that you were completely irrational. Oh well, guess I was wrong on that one. The good thing is that I can bring myself back to rationality rather easily. You? I'm not so sure.

[Yakuza Rich]

it's funny how we're irrational, but they have yet to give us a rational explanation as to why, and what, Goodell is "hiding"

very rational


Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.

Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid. :)




YAKUZA

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.

for forever, or just for the season?

Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid. :)




YAKUZA

I think he did it so that the focus during the season wouldn't be on Spy-gate, I've already admitted that Goodell probably wanted this to go away, but for only the season, you can't just make something like this disappear from people's minds forever, no matter how hard you try

I don't think he's evil, or stupid, trying to make money? yes

[Yakuza Rich]

It makes no sense if you're fixed on forcing his actions into what you think.

Here are the issues:

1. Jay Glazer already got a copy of the tape. So much for security.
2. Goodell doesn't know whether copies of the tape exist so security really isn't going to do you any good if copies exist.
3. The Pats (who could have destroyed the tapes prior to receiving the memo from Goodell to turn over all their tapes) gave Goodell what they said they had.
4. Goodell knows that the Pats have been taping other teams. So let's say he receives only tapes from the 2006 and 2007 season. He says, "Okay, this is all you have?" The Pats say, "Yes." And Goodell says, "Okay, these are going in the fire." He has put the Patriots on notice that if anything else surfaces, they are responsible because they said those were all the tapes. It is the Pats responsibility if Walsh has a copy of other tapes because they told Goodell that all they had was what they gave him.

Glazer having a tape should give almost no reason for destroying the tape. Let's say Glazer decides to doctor the tape or take the tape out of context and show it to the public, then that provides reason as to why Goodell should've kept the tape so he can then show the public what was really on the tape.

We do know that Goodell said that he believed it was an isolated incident. Perhaps he meant something different, but to me if he thought that there were other incidents that he couldn't prove, he would've commented that they are still investigating the incident. Instead he thought the case was shut and refused to answer questions from the press about it up until Specter became involved.

If he's not a liar and if he's not stupid, then he's incredibly naive.



YAKUZA

[DCfaninDC]

1. Jay Glazer already got a copy of the tape. So much for security.
So now people should believe a guy who can keep an eye on some TAPES.

2. Goodell doesn't know whether copies of the tape exist so security really isn't going to do you any good if copies exist.
3. The Pats (who could have destroyed the tapes prior to receiving the memo from Goodell to turn over all their tapes) gave Goodell what they said they had.
Both points imply one thing, no one except for the Pats know if that was all. I am sure Goodell destroyed all the tapes and have no back-up copies to save his a$$ and the NFL's in case he ithey are accused of something. ;)
4. Goodell knows that the Pats have been taping other teams. So let's say he receives only tapes from the 2006 and 2007 season. He says, "Okay, this is all you have?" The Pats say, "Yes." And Goodell says, "Okay, these are going in the fire." He has put the Patriots on notice that if anything else surfaces, they are responsible because they said those were all the tapes. It is the Pats responsibility if Walsh has a copy of other tapes because they told Goodell that all they had was what they gave him.
Even if Goodell didn't ask the Pats if there were more tapes and the Pats confirming it, who else could be held responsible?

The bottom line is that they wouldn't have destroyed the tapes if the didn't feel like they can be used against them. All the reasons above and that I have heard before do not makes sense. With new technology and encryption, he could have saved the data digitally and then keep it in a safe. Also, the Pats could have very easily made copies and gave the original to Goodell.

[Yakuza Rich]

for forever, or just for the season?



I think he did it so that the focus during the season wouldn't be on Spy-gate, I've already admitted that Goodell probably wanted this to go away, but for only the season, you can't just make something like this disappear from people's minds forever, no matter how hard you try

I don't think he's evil, or stupid, trying to make money? yes

If he's trying to make money by sweeping it under the rug for a season then it stands to reason that he felt it would probably be beneficial if he could sweep it under the rug for eternity.

Regardless of whether or not you think people will forget (and many people often due with time), it's not unreasonable to think Goodell thought otherwise. We are not too far away from a Dallas trainer talking about knowing Atlanta and Dallas players who took steroids and HGH. Do you ever hear that being talked about now?

Anyway, my opinion is that I could see your point if he kept the tapes. That would've told me that he was possibly investigating after the season and could then use those tapes if new evidence came along. Instead, he destroyed the evidence and his reasoning is either stupid or not true.





YAKUZA

[Bob Sacamano]

If he's trying to make money by sweeping it under the rug for a season then it stands to reason that he felt it would probably be beneficial if he could sweep it under the rug for eternity.

that, I just can't get into, that stands for whoever to believe what they may

We are not too far away from a Dallas trainer talking about knowing Atlanta and Dallas players who took steroids and HGH. Do you ever hear that being talked about now?

either the guy was full of crap, or they're trying to hide a big ring of active players using HGH, involving some star NFL players, I hope it's the former

Anyway, my opinion is that I could see your point if he kept the tapes. That would've told me that he was possibly investigating after the season and could then use those tapes if new evidence came along. Instead, he destroyed the evidence and his reasoning is either stupid or not true.

YAKUZA

again, it stands for whoever to believe what they want to believe

and it's not like Belichick and the Pats released all of the tapes to him anyways

I just wonder if this would be an issue at all if Goodell just went ahead and taken both 1st round picks away and suspended Belicheat 5 games

[tyke1doe]

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're being facetious, and you know it.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I can only tell you the truth. What you choose to believe is another matter.


That's not all. It's what Walsh said, what the destroyed tapes said, what other teams say, what Mangini says, etc.

Wait a second. I thought the "destroyed" tapes were of the late 2006 and 2007 season? Now the destroyed tapes are of the Super Bowl walk-through of the Rams? :eek:
Sorry, but the Pats have said they didn't tape the walk-through and Walsh seems to allege they did.


It wasn't creating headlines until the week before the Super Bowl. What fans say on message boards means little in the grand scheme of things.

You say "public scrutiny." I thought fans on message boards and people in general constituted the "public." :rolleyes:

Spygate has been an issue since September. It hardly went away and was mentioned by cast members on ESPN, by players and by fans on message boards and at watering holes throughout the country.


Do you know what a subpoena is? Hint: it's not a search warrant.

But Goodell doesn't have to have either FYI.

My bad. I meant search warrant.

And you may say that Goodell didn't need either, but without it, he can't just barge into the Patriots headquarters, especially if he thought the Patriots were so nefarious that they would discard evidence before he had asked for it.

Again, its funny that you would criticize Goodell for trusting the Pats to turn over tapes and then in the same breath argue Goodell could just waltz into the Patriots offices and take what he wants without the power to do so.


This little tangent into whether Goodell has subpoena power is completely out of left field. Not to mention the fact that again you have misapplied terms used in the legal world. I thought I warned you about that.

Yes, I used the wrong term.

No, it's not out of left field.


Is there a point somewhere in this paragraph?

Just this: How was Goodell suppose to know which tapes were which if he had the authority to barge into the Patriots office and seize tapes?


You're right... it is irrational to try to reason with the irrational. I guess I didn't want to believe that you were completely irrational. Oh well, guess I was wrong on that one. The good thing is that I can bring myself back to rationality rather easily. You? I'm not so sure.

Just so long as you admit to bouts of irrationality, I'm okay with that. :D
Besides, you know I can emerge from irrationality too because we have agreed on the issue of the Rooney Rule in other threads, unless you were being totally irrational on that subject too. ;) :)

[tyke1doe]

Yes, you are irrational if you can't see given the Pats success, in particularly this year, why a person in Goodell's position may be motivated to try and sweep this under the rug.


But when Spygate occurred and Goodell issued his punishment, the Pats were 1-0 like 15 other teams in the NFL.
So now Goodell is clairvoyant and sees that the Pats would be 16-0 when he issued his ruling? :eek:
And you talk about irrationality? :eek:


Whether or not you believe the Pats cheated or it made a difference, the fact is that it has put a sizeable dent in the game's intregrity in many fans' eyes. I'm not saying it's a definite thing with Goodell, but it's not a stretch to think that Goodell wanted to sweep this under the rug in hopes that if he did it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the game.

Either that or he's just stupid. :)


That's plausible, that he could have swept this under the rug to protect the integrity of the game.
But here's why I would question that conclusion: If he were trying to sweep everything under the rug why would he ...

1. Issue a punishment,
2. Acknowledge that the Pats were rumored to have cheated previously,
3. Indicate if he found additional information he would continue the investigation,
4. Aggressively monitor the Pats and their video taping program,
5. Continue to assess claims that the Pats cheated in other contests.

Add to that the only tapes we know were destroyed, according to Goodell, are tapes of games late in the 2006 season and 2007 preseason games.

Of course, this suggests that if the Pats had a more extensive library collection but only gave up tapes of the 2006 and 2007 season, then they are either lying, destroy them themselves or the tapes they have aren't conclusive enough to determine if they indeed were illegal.

Those alternate points lead me to reasonably believe that there isn't a cover-up going on as you suggest.

[tyke1doe]

So now people should believe a guy who can keep an eye on some TAPES.

Huh? :huh:


Both points imply one thing, no one except for the Pats know if that was all. I am sure Goodell destroyed all the tapes and have no back-up copies to save his a$$ and the NFL's in case he ithey are accused of something. ;)

Proof please?


Even if Goodell didn't ask the Pats if there were more tapes and the Pats confirming it, who else could be held responsible?

Goodell asked the Pats to turn over all their illegal tapes, or that's what I would assume for news stories.

But if they didn't turn over all their tapes, and it was found out, then Goodell could issue further sanctions. You must have missed the Chris Mortensen story I offered on the other page.


The bottom line is that they wouldn't have destroyed the tapes if the didn't feel like they can be used against them. All the reasons above and that I have heard before do not makes sense. With new technology and encryption, he could have saved the data digitally and then keep it in a safe. Also, the Pats could have very easily made copies and gave the original to Goodell.

Which is why Mortensen writes this article:


If Pats don't comply with Goodell's order, more sanctions likely coming
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: September 16, 2007, 11:11 AM ET


NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered the New England Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action of coach Bill Belichick and the franchise, according to sources familiar with the details of Goodell's private communication with the team, ESPN's Chris Mortensen has learned.


If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, the sources said.

Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.


If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

So here we have the commissioner ordering the Patriots to turn over all the tapes.
I guess if he had the legal power to execute a search of the Patriots' premise, he could have round them up himself. :rolleyes: But he didn't.
So he tells them to turn over all tapes.
They turn over the tapes, or so they say.
They are now on notice that, based on their actions, they have no more illegal tapes and not only that, but no copies exist.
Now, if any other copies surface, they will prove to be liars, and Goodell can take further actions against them.

Makes sense to me, and, fortunately, I have the above story to support my perspective on this argument. :)

[tyke1doe]

Glazer having a tape should give almost no reason for destroying the tape. Let's say Glazer decides to doctor the tape or take the tape out of context and show it to the public, then that provides reason as to why Goodell should've kept the tape so he can then show the public what was really on the tape.

With all due respect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
First, why would you even assume that Glazer would doctor a tape?
Second, why would Goodell be pressed to show the tape was doctored when the tape was illegal anyway?
Third, if the purpose is to get rid of an illegal tape, there would be no need to show the "real" "authentic" tape.


We do know that Goodell said that he believed it was an isolated incident. Perhaps he meant something different, but to me if he thought that there were other incidents that he couldn't prove, he would've commented that they are still investigating the incident. Instead he thought the case was shut and refused to answer questions from the press about it up until Specter became involved.

First, law enforcement rarely, if ever, discloses the details of an investigation. All you're going to know about is that an investigation is ongoing, but the details of that, you're not going to know.

Second, Goodell said he has been reviewing leads over the past six months. You say that he's just saying that because of Specter's inquiry. And I would believe you IF not for the Chris Mortensen article I cited repeatedly.

If Pats don't comply with Goodell's order, more sanctions likely coming
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: September 16, 2007, 11:11 AM ET

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered the New England Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action of coach Bill Belichick and the franchise, according to sources familiar with the details of Goodell's private communication with the team, ESPN's Chris Mortensen has learned.


If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, the sources said.

Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.

If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

This article, written in September, gives credibility to the notion that Goodell was continuing to investigate this issue. That he didn't tell us about it (or more precisely, tell us the details about an ongoing investigation) isn't uncommon with respect to the secretive nature of investigations.


If he's not a liar and if he's not stupid, then he's incredibly naive.


He may have been very naive with respect to public reaction. I'll give you that.

[Blake]

With all due respect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
First, why would you even assume that Glazer would doctor a tape?
Second, why would Goodell be pressed to show the tape was doctored when the tape was illegal anyway?
Third, if the purpose is to get rid of an illegal tape, there would be no need to show the "real" "authentic" tape.



First, law enforcement rarely, if ever, discloses the details of an investigation. All you're going to know about is that an investigation is ongoing, but the details of that, you're not going to know.

Second, Goodell said he has been reviewing leads over the past six months. You say that he's just saying that because of Specter's inquiry. And I would believe you IF not for the Chris Mortensen article I cited repeatedly.



This article, written in September, gives credibility to the notion that Goodell was continuing to investigate this issue. That he didn't tell us about it (or more precisely, tell us the details about an ongoing investigation) isn't uncommon with respect to the secretive nature of investigations.



He may have been very naive with respect to public reaction. I'll give you that.


Your one of those that likes to hear themselves talk aren't you

[CanadianCowboysFan]

down comes the mighty empire.............:lmao2:


its a damn shame what this will do to Brady's legacy as one of the greats ......or will it have any effect? he is no doubt one of the best ever...right?

easy to be great when you know what is coming at you ;)

this might also explain how Mumbles became the great coach in New England after being an abject failure in Cleveland

[superpunk]

Back in September, Greg Easterbrook wrote a really interesting article, that was really only interesting because of the mad speculation he ran in it.

He wasn't far off (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl).

One thing I have an issue with is the league office's inconsistency when describing why they destroyed the tapes so rapidly.

First, Aiello wrote, "The purpose of destroying the tapes and related documents was to eliminate any advantage they might have given the Patriots going forward and ensure a level playing field for all 32 teams." But the league announced last week that the Patriots "certified in writing" that no copies of the materials exist. If the sole copies of the sign-stealing materials had been sent to the league office, it would be impossible for these materials to give the Patriots any advantage. When I pointed that out, Aiello countered that the reason for the destruction was "so that our clubs would know they no longer exist and cannot be used by anyone." Again, if the sole copies were being held by the league, how could any club use the material?

And now, Goodell seems to be taking the stance that they were destroyed because

(a) They had an admission of guilt by the Patriots, and

(b) Jay Glazer getting ahold of one freaked them out.

Is that correct?

Here was Easterbrook's portion when he asked whether the Pats had taped during super bowls.

After Aiello twice declined to say what the Patriots' materials showed, I heard from him a third time Sunday. He wrote in an e-mail that my assumption the tapes contained indications of Super Bowl cheating is "wrong," then wrote, "There is no such evidence regarding the Patriots' Super Bowl victories." So, is this the denial that I've been seeking? But wait: Three days earlier, the NFL destroyed the evidence. I asked Aiello whether he meant there is no evidence now of New England cheating in a Super Bowl -- that is, after the destruction of the files -- or whether examination of the materials positively affirmed no cheating. He did not reply.

Is the Rams evidence new, if not confirmed? If not, then Aiello was lying here.

[SultanOfSix]

how convenient

yet you try to pass off this "default" bullchition, that contains no proof, as fact

This has been repeated ad naseum and you Pats defenders are ridiculous in your rationalizations. You don't destroy evidence if you're 1) innocent because it vindicates you and 2) if it's inconclusive because you can't determine guilt one way or the other. So, that leaves 3) you're guilty and you want it covered up.

So, the only bullchitification is what is being done by Pats defenders. Go tell a judge why you destroyed evidence and see if he thinks that "it could fall into the wrong hands" is a sufficient enough reason. You'll be laughed out of a court room.

[tyke1doe]

Your one of those that likes to hear themselves talk aren't you

Change it to "type," and I say "yes."

Gotta keep the typing skills fine tuned. :D

[peplaw06]

My bad. I meant search warrant.

And you may say that Goodell didn't need either, but without it, he can't just barge into the Patriots headquarters, especially if he thought the Patriots were so nefarious that they would discard evidence before he had asked for it.No Goodell doesn't have to have a search warrant. The search warrant is a constitutional requirement for state actors. Goodell is not a state actor. I'm certain his powers are covered in the CBA. Hence, your tangent is out of left field.

And this dependence you're placing on the Mortensen article that says Goodell will continue to investigate is ridiculous. That article was written before the Pats turned over the tapes.... almost 6 months ago.

It says nothing about what Goodell actually did over those 6 months. You can't prove that he investigated based on what he "intended" to do. Unless you have some articles between the time that Goodell destroyed the tapes and the week before the Super Bowl that actually go into what Goodell was investigating, all your bluster is just speculation.

[tyke1doe]

No Goodell doesn't have to have a search warrant. The search warrant is a constitutional requirement for state actors. Goodell is not a state actor. I'm certain his powers are covered in the CBA. Hence, your tangent is out of left field.

But the point, counselor, is that without it or powers to search the Patriots' complex, you can't say he can just barge in there and seize the tapes. So he has to trust the Patriots to turn over all their tapes and trust that they're telling him the truth. Without the power to search their facilities, what other choice does he have?


And this dependence you're placing on the Mortensen article that says Goodell will continue to investigate is ridiculous. That article was written before the Pats turned over the tapes.... almost 6 months ago.

No, it's not ridiculous. It's another point in my argument.
Furthermore, it emphasize a point of contention in this issue, i.e., did the Pats turn over ALL the tapes or are there other copies out there.
Remember, Walsh is said to have a copy of those tapes.
And his possession of those tapes would appear to violate Goodell's mandate to the Pats, hence the investigation and possibly further sanctions.


It says nothing about what Goodell actually did over those 6 months. You can't prove that he investigated based on what he "intended" to do. Unless you have some articles between the time that Goodell destroyed the tapes and the week before the Super Bowl that actually go into what Goodell was investigating, all your bluster is just speculation.

As is your bluster that there's a cover-up. :rolleyes:

Neither you or I know what actually happened. All we know for certain is that the Pats cheated, the league caught the Pats cheating during the Jets game and that tapes were destroyed.

We don't know the full extent of this investigation because, naturally, we're not going to be privy to that information.

So we're both speculating to some degree. :)

[khiladi]

If Pats don't comply with Goodell's order, more sanctions likely coming
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: September 16, 2007, 11:11 AM ET

Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.

If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.



All the more amusing that an article dated September 16 is given as proof to support Goodell. As I said before, your just not following the case and are so interested in defending your lame arguments it is laughable.

Per the words of Spectre, they destroyed the tapes on the 20th. They fined Bellichek on the 18th or earlier. What this means is that whatever Goodell said prior to the 20th was simply a smokescreen. He had to do it, considering his whole image was predicated on cleaning up the image of the league. He thought that by laying down this 'punishment', people would think the issue was over.

The whole 'thorough' investigation never happened. The whole argument that he was going to investigate further, considering the timeline of the actual events, makes no sense.

[khiladi]

I know this is hard for you Goodell fnas, but let me break it down to you:

THE TAPES WERE RECEIVED AND DESTROYED AFTER GOODELL LAID DOWN HIS JUDGEMENT, PER THE WORDS OF SPECTRE....

[theogt]

SPECTER PRESSES FORWARD, WITH SUPPORT
Posted by Mike Florio on February 15, 2008, 8:40 a.m.

Surely, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell hoped that Wednesday’s meeting with Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was the last chapter in a book that Goodell can’t wait to finish. For Specter, however, there still are many pages left.

Specter plans to press forward with his investigation of the manner in which the league handled the Spygate scandal. According to Mike Fish of ESPN.com, Specter claims that he has the support of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Specter said that Leahy is “prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate.” While that’s a far cry from a hearing like the Rocket-and-Pony show that unfolded this week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, it’s a step toward what ultimately could be a full-blown Congressional inquiry.

In our view, it’s important for Specter to show that other Senators are on board with his efforts. As we argued on Thursday, Specter’s solo act was at its ending point. Though there are questions that still need to be answered, the mission needs to take root with others in Congress before it can be taken seriously.

Fish also explains (and we can’t recall ever seeing this before) that the materials surrendered by the Pats were destroyed in Foxborough by Jeff Pash and Ray Anderson.

Pash’s role in this matter is critical, in our view. Pash, you see, is a Harvard-educated lawyer. He practiced for 13 years with Covington & Burling, the firm that still handles the league’s work. And any practicing lawyer (even those who went to far less prestigious schools and work for far less prestigious firms) know that the prospect of destroying potential evidence is a serious matter.

Pash’s involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.

Again, that’s only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn’t keep the information out of the hands of the media isn’t, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

[khiladi]

Pash’s involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.

Again, that’s only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn’t keep the information out of the hands of the media isn’t, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

Uh no, the rumor is that the Patriots cheated, not the rest of the league. Another angle to absolve the Patriots and Bellichek...

[theogt]

Uh no, the rumor is that the Patriots cheated, not the rest of the league. Another angle to absolve the Patriots and Bellichek...The rumor he's been floating for awhile is that the reason Goodell went so easy on the Patriots and destroyed the tapes was because Belichick threatened him to come forward with information about many more teams cheating. Basically a scorched earth policy.

[REDVOLUTION]

Sometimes cheating just aint enough

by Don Henley - Covered by Bill Belichick


Theres a danger in cheating too much
And its sad when you know its your coach you cant trust
Theres a reason why people dont stay where they are
Baby sometimes cheating just aint enough

Now I could never change you
I do wanna blame you

And like a fool who will never see the truth
You keep thinking somethings gonna change

http://popchutesite.com/mindee/Lombardi_Trophy.jpg
And theres no way to get this years trophy home
When its late at night and youre all alone
Are there things that you wanted to say "I cheated"
Do you feel it beside you in your bed
There beside you where it used to lay

[5Stars]

The rumor he's been floating for awhile is that the reason Goodell went so easy on the Patriots and destroyed the tapes was because Belichick threatened him to come forward with information about many more teams cheating. Basically a scorched earth policy.


Exactely how is Belicheat going to do that?

"Yeah, Mr. Goodell, but the Cowboys cheated, so there"!!

Does Belicheat have access to all the teams librarys?

Easy, theogt...easy!

[khiladi]

The rumor he's been floating for awhile is that the reason Goodell went so easy on the Patriots and destroyed the tapes was because Belichick threatened him to come forward with information about many more teams cheating. Basically a scorched earth policy.

Goodell is just full of crap. He has changed his story so many times it is laughable.

He is said to have stated that the NFL disclosed the matter about the Patriots. If what Goodell says is true, than logically, the idea that other teams were cheating is just absurd. Why would he disclose the matter, if it went deeper than the Patriots?

Now, there is the rumor that other NFL teams are willing to turn over evidence regarding the Patriots, if they believe the investigation doesn't go far enough. It is quite clear that many players began to express the idea that there was a certain favoritism going for the Patriots this year.

[Chocolate Lab]

Good article SP posted.

"There is no such evidence regarding the Patriots' Super Bowl victories." So, is this the denial that I've been seeking? But wait: Three days earlier, the NFL destroyed the evidence. I asked Aiello whether he meant there is no evidence now of New England cheating in a Super Bowl -- that is, after the destruction of the files -- or whether examination of the materials positively affirmed no cheating. He did not reply.

Maybe this is why they destroyed it... So they could use this oh-so-tricky excuse that no evidence on the Super Bowl existed?

And of course so that when more powerful forces got involved, they wouldn't have anything to reveal to the world.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a huge cover-up is living in la-la land.

[conner01]

one thing that really puzzles me. in order for the tapes to help you the other team would have to go all season and never change their signals.every teams knows the other team is watching their signals. thats why some teams have 2 peope giving signals, thats why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays. it's common knowledge around the nfl that other teams are watching ( not that they are taping)
so why would a team not change their signals?

[5Stars]

Good article SP posted.



Maybe this is why they destroyed it... So they could use this oh-so-tricky excuse that no evidence on the Super Bowl existed?

And of course so that when more powerful forces got involved, they wouldn't have anything to reveal to the world.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a huge cover-up is living in la-la land.




It's possible that there is a cover up and it's also possible that the Patties did not cheat...however, the damage is done! They will live with this for the entire existence of that franchise.

As for me...I would not doubt for a second that Belicheat cheated! The man does not seem to have any morals at all. The idiot dogged another coaches wife, now that is cheating at it's finest!

And all this "Here, Mr. Goodell, this is all the tapes I have. Six tapes out of 3 hundred thousand tapes, and here are 2 sheets of paper notes. Is that good enough"?

"Sure, Mr. Belichick, I'll take your word for it. You seem to be an honest man. I'll destroy these tapes and notes and this will go away, OK? Hey, let's go catch some lunch"!


:rolleyes:

[peplaw06]

But the point, counselor, is that without it or powers to search the Patriots' complex, you can't say he can just barge in there and seize the tapes. So he has to trust the Patriots to turn over all their tapes and trust that they're telling him the truth. Without the power to search their facilities, what other choice does he have?No the point is once again, you've misapplied terms typically reserved for the legal realm. You're only making it worse.

Neither you or I know what actually happened. All we know for certain is that the Pats cheated, the league caught the Pats cheating during the Jets game and that tapes were destroyed.:laugh2:

Yeah, sounds like a kosher set of circumstances there.

We don't know the full extent of this investigation because, naturally, we're not going to be privy to that information.
Not if the investigator is hiding information. Most investigations give at least some indication that they are actually investigating something. When you don't hear anything out of an "investigation" after the only evidence is destroyed, speculation about a "cover-up" is instantly at play.

You might wanna read that article that theo posted from Florio. Specifically the part about the lawyer destroying the evidence and what that means to most lawyers.

[peplaw06]

one thing that really puzzles me. in order for the tapes to help you the other team would have to go all season and never change their signals.every teams knows the other team is watching their signals. thats why some teams have 2 peope giving signals, thats why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays. it's common knowledge around the nfl that other teams are watching ( not that they are taping)
so why would a team not change their signals?

If it doesn't help, then why do it routinely for 7 years?

[5Stars]

If it doesn't help, then why do it routinely for 7 years?


Why? Because the genius said that he did not know the rules! :rolleyes:

So much for the coaching genius, I guess...and, apparently the genius cannot read because even after the NFL sent him a letter telling him not to do it, the genius(i cannot spell this damn word for the life of me) did it again the following week or so!

Yeah, that Belichick is a pretty fart smeller, ifen you know wat I means...

[khiladi]

Not if the investigator is hiding information. Most investigations give at least some indication that they are actually investigating something. When you don't hear anything out of an "investigation" after the only evidence is destroyed, speculation about a "cover-up" is instantly at play.


Which is just laughable in this whole context. Bellichek was punished with the 'steepest' fine in the history of the NFL before Goodell even got the tapes and destroyed them. The idea of there being a steep fine was a concoction by the NFL to downplay this whole event. Goodell 'punished' Bellichek without even looking at the evidence. How can you claim that the punishment was enough, when there wasn't even an 'investigation' into the tapes until after the punishment?

Now, he is saying that he pursued all these various leads after the fact, but couldn't find anything?

You expect us to believe you were interested in pursuing the matter further, when you GET the evidence and destroy it AFTER the punishment?

The guy is straight lying....

[tyke1doe]

No the point is once again, you've misapplied terms typically reserved for the legal realm. You're only making it worse.

:laugh2:

Exactly. Search warrants are reserved for the legal world. So any arguments that Goodell could just march into Patriots headquarters and access tapes highlights my point that he doesn't have power to do so.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

Oh, and the obligatory. :laugh2:


Yeah, sounds like a kosher set of circumstances there.

I could care less about Jewish dietary concerns, ;) I'm speaking merely about what we know versus what we don't know.


Not if the investigator is hiding information. Most investigations give at least some indication that they are actually investigating something. When you don't hear anything out of an "investigation" after the only evidence is destroyed, speculation about a "cover-up" is instantly at play.

You don't generally hear anything of an ongoing investigation unless you asked. And even if you do, you're simply going to get "there is an ongoing investigation" and little more. You're not going to get any details of that investigation. I've covered cops, and when I've inquired into certain investigations all I get is "an investigation is ongoing." That's how it works.
Goodell says he's been pursuing and evaluating information as it's presented to him. That sounds like an ongoing investigation to me.


You might wanna read that article that theo posted from Florio. Specifically the part about the lawyer destroying the evidence and what that means to most lawyers.

I don't doubt that lawyers (and journalists for that matter) believe there's a cover-up going on. I've acknowledged in another thread that I don't begrudge anyone who thinks so.

But, here again, all I'm saying is that I can understand why the tapes were destroyed, particularly the Jets tape and specifically the tapes which covered the later 2006 and the 2007 preseason.

[tyke1doe]

Which is just laughable in this whole context. Bellichek was punished with the 'steepest' fine in the history of the NFL before Goodell even got the tapes and destroyed them. The idea of there being a steep fine was a concoction by the NFL to downplay this whole event. Goodell 'punished' Bellichek without even looking at the evidence. How can you claim that the punishment was enough, when there wasn't even an 'investigation' into the tapes until after the punishment?

Now, he is saying that he pursued all these various leads after the fact, but couldn't find anything?

You expect us to believe you were interested in pursuing the matter further, when you GET the evidence and destroy it AFTER the punishment?

The guy is straight lying....


The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!

Could the punishment be more severe if it's discovered that the Pats still have illegal tapes? YES!

Why?

Because the Pats swore that they not only didn't tape the Rams walk-through but that they turned over all such tapes.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[superpunk]

The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!


Aiello said the heavy penalties assessed the Patriots on Sept. 13 were for "the totality of the conduct" in multiple instances of sign-stealing over several years, not for "one tape seized at the end of one quarter of one game," meaning the tape taken from the Patriots in their season opener at the New York Jets.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Probably because you're wrong.

[tyke1doe]

Aiello said the heavy penalties assessed the Patriots on Sept. 13 were for "the totality of the conduct" in multiple instances of sign-stealing over several years, not for "one tape seized at the end of one quarter of one game," meaning the tape taken from the Patriots in their season opener at the New York Jets.


Well, let me read that story, and I'll get back with you. :)

[khiladi]

The punishment is because of illegal taping of the JETS game.

The league caught the Jets red-handed. Whether the Patriots taped games in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 is irrelevant to the punishment the Pats received for being caught by the league for taping the Jets game, and that after Goodell told all 32 clubs that this type of taping was against league policy.

Or, put another way. Let's assume that the Pats never taped a game except for the Jets game. Would the penalty have been any less? NO!

Could the punishment be more severe if it's discovered that the Pats still have illegal tapes? YES!

Why?

Because the Pats swore that they not only didn't tape the Rams walk-through but that they turned over all such tapes.

Why is that so hard to understand?


You just make up crap as you go along. Even the very article you quoted states the following:


The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.


Notice where even you highlighted that the Patriots taping signals goes back to other years, and Goodell was aware of it. In fact, that is the very reason it states that he got such a stiff penalty.

[tyke1doe]

You just make up crap as you go along. Even the very article you quoted states the following:


I'm not making crap up. I'm just going based on what I've read.

But I read superpunk's link, and I was wrong. Per Aiello's statement, the penalty was assessed based on the Pats' "totality of conduct."

So does mean I'm arguing merely to protect my "Super Ego." ;) :D

[peplaw06]

Exactly. Search warrants are reserved for the legal world. So any arguments that Goodell could just march into Patriots headquarters and access tapes highlights my point that he doesn't have power to do so.

Thank you for supporting my argument. I don't understand how someone, who supposedly deals with words on a daily basis, can struggle as much as you do with such simple ones.


I could care less about Jewish dietary concerns, ;) I'm speaking merely about what we know versus what we don't know. Being intentionally obtuse doesn't become you.

You don't generally hear anything of an ongoing investigation unless you asked. And even if you do, you're simply going to get "there is an ongoing investigation" and little more. You're not going to get any details of that investigation. I've covered cops, and when I've inquired into certain investigations all I get is "an investigation is ongoing." That's how it works.
Goodell says he's been pursuing and evaluating information as it's presented to him. That sounds like an ongoing investigation to me. Did we even get "there is an ongoing investigation" in this instance. Link?

I think Goodell said he reserved the right to re-open the investigation. Doesn't sound like it's ongoing to me.

And a high profile case like this, where Senate is involved... there is going to be much more news that the casual "there is an ongoing investigation." You're going to hear exactly who they're interviewing at the very least. I know we didn't hear that as it was supposedly "ongoing."

But, here again, all I'm saying is that I can understand why the tapes were destroyed, particularly the Jets tape and specifically the tapes which covered the later 2006 and the 2007 preseason.Coming from a guy who doesn't understand what a search warrant or a subpoena are, what "he said, she said" means, what the difference is between an ongoing and closed investigation... shall I go on?

You probably think you understand why Goodell destroyed the tapes, just like you think you know what all those terms mean.

[tyke1doe]

I don't understand how someone, who supposedly deals with words on a daily basis, can struggle as much as you do with such simple ones.

Journalists struggle with words just as lawyers struggle with simplicity. ;)
Besides, we're talking about concepts. The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.


Being intentionally obtuse doesn't become you.

You mean my joke is intentionally obtuse? :( ;)


Did we even get "there is an ongoing investigation" in this instance. Link?
I think Goodell said he reserved the right to re-open the investigation. Doesn't sound like it's ongoing to me.

I've already provide you with Goodell's comments that he's been getting leads over six months. I've provided it numerous times. Search for yourself.


And a high profile case like this, where Senate is involved... there is going to be much more news that the casual "there is an ongoing investigation." You're going to hear exactly who they're interviewing at the very least. I know we didn't hear that as it was supposedly "ongoing."

Agreed.


Coming from a guy who doesn't understand what a search warrant or a subpoena are, what "he said, she said" means, what the difference is between an ongoing and closed investigation... shall I go on?

You probably think you understand why Goodell destroyed the tapes, just like you think you know what all those terms mean.

A mere momentary brain fart. I understand the concepts, that's all you need to be concerned with. You know what I was talking about, hence, you providing the correct term - for which I thank you. :) But the concept is this: Goodell has to trust the Pats to turn over the tapes because he doesn't have the powers of search and seizure at his disposal.

Shall I go on? :) ;)

But I'm sure you will. You simply cannot resist arguing with me.

So much for rationality, huh? :D

[5Stars]

Journalists struggle with words just as lawyers struggle with simplicity. ;)
Besides, we're talking about concepts. The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.



You mean my joke is intentionally obtuse? :( ;)



I've already provide you with Goodell's comments that he's been getting leads over six months. I've provided it numerous times. Search for yourself.



Agreed.



A mere momentary brain fart. I understand the concepts, that's all you need to be concerned with. You know what I was talking about, hence, you providing the correct term - for which I thank you. :) But the concept is this: Goodell has to trust the Pats to turn over the tapes because he doesn't have the powers of search and seizure at his disposal.

Shall I go on? :) ;)

But I'm sure you will. You simply cannot resist arguing with me.

So much for rationality, huh? :D


:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


"Honest, honey! I did not cheat! That condom wraper is NOT MINE...I promise...please believe me...don't leave me"!!


Wow...just wow...

[tyke1doe]

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


"Honest, honey! I did not cheat! That condom wraper is NOT MINE...I promise...please believe me...don't leave me"!!


Wow...just wow...

Was there any other way for Goodell to get those tapes a part from a search warrant?

I don't think the issue is the trustworthiness of the Pats but the inability of Goodell to do anything but trust the Pats to turn over the information.

[5Stars]

Was there any other way for Goodell to get those tapes a part from a search warrant?

I don't think the issue is the trustworthiness of the Pats but the inability of Goodell to do anything but trust the Pats to turn over the information.


Yes, he had to trust the Pats as you say...however! Why did he have to destroy them...that reeks of something very strange, to say the least.

My only thoughts are, if someone is not guilty of doing something, then come clean, don't hide anything, bring it out in the open and clear your name. Now, unless there are copies, that's impossible unless Walsh has something to say...and even then the Pats won't release him from his contract or whatever the hell it is that is keeping him from talking.

Also, where is Belicheat at...how come noone has heard a peep from him? He should have nothing to hide, right?

Regardless, the damage is done, and had Goodelll NOT destroyed those tapes and notes, the damage might have been reversed...as of today, no way.

[tyke1doe]

Yes, he had to trust the Pats as you say...however! Why did he have to destroy them...that reeks of something very strange, to say the least.

My only thoughts are, if someone is not guilty of doing something, then come clean, don't hide anything, bring it out in the open and clear your name. Now, unless there are copies, that's impossible unless Walsh has something to say...and even then the Pats won't release him from his contract or whatever the hell it is that is keeping him from talking.

Also, where is Belicheat at...how come noone has heard a peep from him? He should have nothing to hide, right?

Regardless, the damage is done, and had Goodelll NOT destroyed those tapes and notes, the damage might have been reversed...as of today, no way.


Belichick hardly speaks to the press anyway and reluctantly when he has to. I doubt he's going to say anything when not demanded to do so. He's probably out of the country now anyway, licking his wounds from a Super Bowl beat-down. :D

But I acknowledge your point. I want to take this discussion away from questioning or criticizing anyone who feels there's a cover-up. I just don't think there is. I think there are reasons to destroy the tapes. But I could be wrong. We'll see what Walsh has. That's the next big revelation in this incident.

[peplaw06]

The concept here is that Goodell doesn't have the right or authority to march into the Pats office and seize all the tapes they have. You know, that would take, uh, a search warrant.
No. It. Would. Not.

You show me where he's required to have a search warrant for investigating teams under his authority as Commissioner.

What I do know is this section of the NFL Rule Book doesn't say a single thing about search warrants.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts

Commissioner’s Authority

The Commissioner has sole authority to investigate and to take appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures if any club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency occurs in an NFL game which he deems so unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of a game.

No Club Protests

The authority and measures provided for in this section (UNFAIR ACTS) do not constitute a protest machinery for NFL clubs to dispute the result of a game. The Commissioner will conduct an investigation under this section only to review an act or occurrence that he deems so unfair that the result of the game in question may be inequitable to one of the participating teams. The Commissioner will not apply his authority under this section when a club registers a complaint concerning judgmental errors or routine errors of omission by game officials. Games involving such complaints will continue to stand as completed.

Penalties for Unfair Acts

The Commissioner’s powers under this section (UNFAIR ACTS) include the imposition of monetary fines and draft choice forfeitures, suspension of persons involved, and, if appropriate, the reversal of a game’s result or the rescheduling of a game, either from the beginning or from the point at which the extraordinary act occurred. In the event of rescheduling a game, the Commissioner will be guided by the procedures specified above ("Procedures for Starting and Resuming Games" under EMERGENCIES). In all cases, the Commissioner will conduct a full investigation, including the opportunity for hearings, use of game videotape, and any other procedures he deems appropriate.

If you'll notice it says in the first sentence there that the Commish "has sole authority." Know what that means? It means he can do what he wants, when he wants, in investigating under this section.

If someone had to issue a search warrant, he wouldn't have sole authority. He would have to get someone else to sign off on it.

Like I said, completely out of left field, and completely wrong.

[5Stars]

Belichick hardly speaks to the press anyway and reluctantly when he has to. I doubt he's going to say anything when not demanded to do so. He's probably out of the country now anyway, licking his wounds from a Super Bowl beat-down. :D

But I acknowledge your point. I want to take this discussion away from questioning or criticizing anyone who feels there's a cover-up. I just don't think there is. I think there are reasons to destroy the tapes. But I could be wrong. We'll see what Walsh has. That's the next big revelation in this incident.


See, this is what I don't understand about your stance. What good was it to destroy something that cannot tarnish an investigation or a person's reputation? Why hide something if there is nothing wrong?

:confused:

[tyke1doe]

No. It. Would. Not.

You show me where he's required to have a search warrant for investigating teams under his authority as Commissioner.

What I do know is this section of the NFL Rule Book doesn't say a single thing about search warrants.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts



If you'll notice it says in the first sentence there that the Commish "has sole authority." Know what that means? It means he can do what he wants, when he wants, in investigating under this section.

If someone had to issue a search warrant, he wouldn't have sole authority. He would have to get someone else to sign off on it.

Like I said, completely out of left field, and completely wrong.

Wow. You really are missing the point aren't you?

Yes, the Commissioner has the authority to launch an investigation. But that says nothing about his ability to march into the Pats office and seize property, i.e., tapes.

And as a lawyer, you ought to know that what is not said is as important in defining his authority as what is said.

But the point of this whole exchange is Goodell asking the Pats to turn over their tapes. You (I'm assuming it was you suggesting this) seem to think that Goodell was gullible in trusting the Pats to turn over all their tapes. But what other choice did he have? I contend that he didn't have the ability to walk into the Pats offices and confiscate material. That's why he had to ask.

Again, please don't think investigative powers in law enforcement and the legal world correspond to investigative powers in the NFL. (You've already implied they do not.) There's nothing to suggest that that's the case, your citing of the NFL notwithstanding. :)

[tyke1doe]

See, this is what I don't understand about your stance. What good was it to destroy something that cannot tarnish an investigation or a person's reputation? Why hide something if there is nothing wrong?

:confused:

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

[peplaw06]

Wow. You really are missing the point aren't you?How am I missing the point? I'm not the one making up fictional requirements for the Commissioner.

Yes, the Commissioner has the authority to launch an investigation. But that says nothing about his ability to march into the Pats office and seize property, i.e., tapes. It says he has "sole authority to investigate." If he had to get permission to investigate, then he wouldn't have sole authority.

And as a lawyer, you ought to know that what is not said is as important in defining his authority as what is said.You are the king of random dumb remarks. What is not said is as important as what is said? I can't believe I've wasted so much time debating with an imbecile.

But the point of this whole exchange is Goodell asking the Pats to turn over their tapes. You (I'm assuming it was you suggesting this) seem to think that Goodell was gullible in trusting the Pats to turn over all their tapes. But what other choice did he have? I contend that he didn't have the ability to walk into the Pats offices and confiscate material. That's why he had to ask. The only option Goodell had, even though he has sole authority to investigate, was to ask them to provide evidence that they cheated??? This is the most pollyannish, ridiculous comment I've ever heard. And that's saying something, because you have an encyclopedia of these kinds of comments.

Again, please don't think investigative powers in law enforcement and the legal world correspond to investigative powers in the NFL. I don't(You've already implied they do not.)Then what was the point of what you just said? There's nothing to suggest that that's the case, your citing of the NFL notwithstanding. :)Huh? I hope your editor isn't reading this stuff.

[SultanOfSix]

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

Let's replace tapes with "drugs" just for fun.

1. The drugs were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those drugs or them being leaked to the press.

[tyke1doe]

How am I missing the point? I'm not the one making up fictional requirements for the Commissioner.

I've already explained how. I don't think you'd grasp it at this point anyway.



It says he has "sole authority to investigate." If he had to get permission to investigate, then he wouldn't have sole authority.

But sole authority to investigate does not mean he has the power of search and seizure. It just means he is the only person who can conduct an investigation. That he has and that he did.


You are the king of random dumb remarks. What is not said is as important as what is said? I can't believe I've wasted so much time debating with an imbecile.

Because you can't help yourself. You're very frustrated so you lash out like a child. And yet you can't pull yourself away from the conversation even though you have said you would do so on numerous occasions.

Be that as it may, yes, having "sole authority" does not mean that Goodell has the power to go into the Pats office and seize tapes. That's why he asked the Pats to turn over the tapes. That's not hard to understand.


The only option Goodell had, even though he has sole authority to investigate, was to ask them to provide evidence that they cheated??? This is the most pollyannish, ridiculous comment I've ever heard. And that's saying something, because you have an encyclopedia of these kinds of comments.

So what other option did he have other than to ask the Pats to turn over the tapes? Are you saying he could go into their office and seize the tapes?

You're on the clock? ;)

I hope your editor isn't reading this stuff.


He's not.
And yea, you got another gratuitous shot in that doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Give yourself a hand. Oh, I'll give you one myself. :clap:
Feel better?
Good.
Anymore quips? :)
Or is this the place where you swear off engaging me in conversation only to continue your own display of irrational behavior? ;) :D
Remember what how Einstein defined "insanity." :D

[theogt]

Ok, not sure if this is common knowledge by now, but I was listening to NFL Radio on the drive home and the announced that Walsh's attorney said that he has tapes and will reveal them if the league promises to indemnify him (which apparently they haven't done yet, despite what I thought Goodell said).

[theogt]

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client
By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.

"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

[tyke1doe]

Let's replace tapes with "drugs" just for fun.

1. The drugs were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those drugs or them being leaked to the press.

Thank you for the example. And here is my reply.

I'd say that many parents have done that very thing, flushing drugs down the toilet when they discovered them in their children's bedrooms. And there are parents that have gone a step beyond that and have checked their drug-using children into rehab clinics.
They (the parent) did their own investigation, which uncovered the drugs. They, instead of keeping the drugs, disposed of them. Then they administered their own brand of punishment.

Why is this permissible or acceptable? Because parents operate under a different set of rules than the legal system. When the legal system gets involved, there are different procedures involved.

Similarly, the NFL and Goodell operate from a different set of rules and procedures than the legal system.

So trying to compare what Goodell did to the legal system isn't an apple-to-orange comparison.

But the parental example works perfectly even with the drug example. :)

[tyke1doe]

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client
By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.


"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.


Thank you for posting that article, theogt.

[5Stars]

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.

Your words from your last post to peplaw;

That's why he asked the Pats to turn over the tapes.

So that was illegally obtained?

2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.

And just who's fault is that? Yours? Mine? Belichicks?

3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.

Who's going to use them anyway now? I thought coaches change signals during the course of a season? These tapes are about what happened during THEIR season...not upcoming seasons...so what's the big deal?

4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

Why? What does the press have to do with it? What is the possiblity of anyone getting to see the tapes if nothing fishy was going on? Where is the logic in any of that? :confused: Or...are you saying that destroying the tapes so the press cannot see what is on them and SHOW that something was fishy or someone was cheating?

I'll tell you something, tyke1done...you can swim backwards like nothing that I have ever seen before! Your logic is all messed up! :confused:

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

That is your mistake, right there! You are not thinking...


Anyway, carry on...

[theogt]

Thank you for posting that article, theogt.Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.

[Chocolate Lab]

Yep, just heard that for the first time myself, Theo...

I have a feeling Bill Belichick's winter is only going to get better.

And maybe tyke could have bolded this:

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

[SultanOfSix]

Thank you for the example. And here is my reply.

I'd say that many parents have done that very thing, flushing drugs down the toilet when they discovered them in their children's bedrooms. And there are parents that have gone a step beyond that and have checked their drug-using children into rehab clinics.
They (the parent) did their own investigation, which uncovered the drugs. They, instead of keeping the drugs, disposed of them. Then they administered their own brand of punishment.

Why is this permissible or acceptable? Because parents operate under a different set of rules than the legal system. When the legal system gets involved, there are different procedures involved.

Similarly, the NFL and Goodell operate from a different set of rules and procedures than the legal system.

So trying to compare what Goodell did to the legal system isn't an apple-to-orange comparison.

But the parental example works perfectly even with the drug example. :)

I don't ever know what you try to say when you take someone's example, claim its perfect in something that exists in your mind, and then turn it into some lengthy explanation that is four times its length.

The NFL and Goodell operate under a different legal system than normal corporations under the US government because they are effectively a monopoly. Therefore, whenever distrust and lack of integrity become points of dispute for how a multibillion dollar business is being run that involves millions of people of the United States, those same millions of people have the authority in the name of their congressmen to request an investigation.

[tyke1doe]

That is your mistake, right there! You are not thinking...


Anyway, carry on...



I guess this is an Orwellian society where everyone engages in Groupthink.

Yes, carry on.

[5Stars]

Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.


Niether has he, theogt!

:D

[theogt]

Specter Wonders Why Goodell Punished Patriots Before Viewing Evidence
Ryan WilsonPosted Feb 15th 2008 1:52PM by Ryan Wilson
Filed under: Patriots, NFL Fans, NFL Rumors, Featured Stories

I know some people have this idealized notion of what our elected officials should be doing to represent us, and that spending tax dollars to investigate allegations of cheating in professional sports ranks somewhere well south of building a bridge to nowhere or planning future manned missions to Mars on the "why we put you in office" to-do list.

We're still waiting on that bridge, and the space exploration thing is more than a decade off, but Senator Arlen Specter is fully embracing cheating in sports. Frankly, I have no issue with it; I've mentioned before that gridlock is the ultimate checks-and-balances tool. With different parties controlling the White House and Congress, it's much more difficult to pass inane legislation that would end up benefiting a few and disappointing everybody else.

So instead of pretending to tackle the important issues, lawmakers are left to tend to their pet projects. And for Specter, it's the NFL's antitrust exemption, and now, Patriotgate.

After meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell earlier this week, Specter learned that the Patriots have been illegally videotaping opponents since 2000. The senator also told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that New England had videotaped the Steelers on four occasions, including. two AFC Championship games.

Goodell has offered a mealy-mouthed argument for why the league was right to destroy the evidence, and he's also mumbled something about leveling a stiff punishment to send a clear message that cheating won't be tolerated. Or some such. But Specter makes an interesting point that raises more questions than it answers:

"The commissioner confirmed the taping had been going on since the year 2000,'' Mr. Specter said. "He made no valid explanation for [destroying the evidence]. There are a couple other major problems he had, to say the least."

One problem, the senator said, is that Mr. Goodell imposed a $500,000 fine on Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine on the team and docked them a first-round draft pick this year before the commissioner learned New England's illegal taping had been more widespread.

The commissioner issued the punishment after a Patriots cameraman was caught taping signals of the New York Jets in their first meeting this season. He then ordered the Patriots to turn over any evidence they had of such taping, including notes. Afterward, no other evidence of illegal taping was mentioned by the league at the time.

"The taping occurred on Sept. 9,'' Mr. Specter noted. "He imposed the fine on the 13th, didn't get the material until the 17th and destroyed it on the 20th. He imposed the fine before he had the notes and tapes.''

Uh-oh. Goodell might've handed down the most severe sanctions in league history, but it's kind of odd to think that he did it without first viewing the evidence. Of course, there could be a perfectly logical explanation, one that I'm sure Specter will get to the bottom of ... assuming Goodell doesn't, say, relent on DirecTV's current monopoly on the NFL Sunday Ticket. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[tyke1doe]

I don't ever know what you try to say when you take someone's example, claim its perfect in some example that exists in your mind, and then turn it into four times it length.

The NFL and Goodell operate under a different legal system than normal corporations under the US government because they are effectively a monopoly. Therefore, whenever distrust and lack of integrity become points of dispute in a multibillion dollar business that involves millions of people of the United States, those same millions of people have the authority in the name of their congressmen to request and investigation.

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it. :)

[tyke1doe]

Niether has he, theogt!

:D

Ah, more gratiutious comments about people not paying attention. :)

[theogt]

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it. :)Weren't you the turd that criticized me for this? By the way, you also have some subject-verb problems going on here.

[SultanOfSix]

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it. :)

You have no fing idea what you're talking about.

[tyke1doe]

Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.

[Vintage]

Patriots getting sued.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248055

[tyke1doe]

You have no fing idea what you're talking about.

And I would say you don't either.

This is clear, though. The NFL is not bound by the same legal requirements and procedures that the government is with respect to an investigation into violations of NFL policy, unless those violations are of a criminal nature.

Do you dispute this? :confused:

[theogt]

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.If he has tapes, why is there an issue of truth at all? This seems like just a tactic by the league. Walsh wants full immunity. If he gets sued for lying, the litigation could be costly and the NFL could have a loophole to back out of their indemnity agreement, even if it turns out that he wasn't lying.

[5Stars]

I guess this is an Orwellian society where everyone engages in Groupthink.

Yes, carry on.


Stop it! :rolleyes:

Did you even read my rebuttles to you?

[Bob Sacamano]

This has been repeated ad naseum and you Pats defenders are ridiculous in your rationalizations. You don't destroy evidence if you're 1) innocent because it vindicates you and 2) if it's inconclusive because you can't determine guilt one way or the other. So, that leaves 3) you're guilty and you want it covered up.

oh, so I'm a Pat fan now? ok

So, the only bullchitification is what is being done by Pats defenders. Go tell a judge why you destroyed evidence and see if he thinks that "it could fall into the wrong hands" is a sufficient enough reason. You'll be laughed out of a court room.

um, Goodell isn't the one under investigation for cheating, the Pats are

and as seeing that Goodell will never go to court over this, your example is just stupid

[SultanOfSix]

And I would say you don't either.

This is clear, though. The NFL is not bound by the same legal requirements and procedures that the government is with respect to an investigation into violations of NFL policy, unless those violations are of a criminal nature.

Do you dispute this? :confused:

If you say I don't know, then I'm sure I know what I'm talking about.

What the hell is your point in contrasting the NFL and the government as not being bound by the same legal requirements, whatever the hell that means? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[SultanOfSix]

oh, so I'm a Pat fan now? ok
um, Goodell isn't the one under investigating for cheating, the Pats are, I really don't know what you're accusing him of being guilty of

Reading problems, eh? Being a Pats defender doesn't make you a Pats fan.

[Bob Sacamano]

Reading problems, eh? Being a Pats defender doesn't make you a Pats fan.

don't you have to have some kind of rooting interest in something in order to defend it? and please show me where I defended the Pats

thanks

again, what is Goodell trying to hide? it can't be the fact that the Pat's cheated, which is the whole issue

[SultanOfSix]

don't you have to have some kind of rooting interest in something in order to defend it? and please show me where I defended the Pats

thanks

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

[Bob Sacamano]

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

well that's just stupid, and since you brought up court, if a lawyer is defending a racist, pedophile, does that make him one too?

the only thing we're arguing here is if Goodell is trying to somehow protect himself from nothing, the Pats are a distant 2nd in the discussion

[SultanOfSix]

well that's just stupid, and since you brought court, if a lawyer is defending a racist, pedophile, does that make him one too?

No. But it does make him a racist, pedophile's defender. You're the one who equated defending a team to rooting for it, not me.

the only thing we're arguing here is if Goodell is trying to somehow protect himself from nothing, the Pats are a distant 2nd in the discussion

I don't even know what that means.

[5Stars]

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.




What? :confused: It's the Pats that have to offer him that, not the NFL!

Now, tell me why the Patriots won't release that indemnity?

Are they worried? If not...

(stupid cowboy fans)

:laugh2:

[Bob Sacamano]

No. But it does make him a racist, pedophile's defender. You're the one who equated defending a team to rooting for it, not me.

but he isn't guilty by association

what have I said that makes you assume that I'm defending the Pats? the only thing I'm defending is Goodell from baseless claims

I don't even know what that means.

it means exactly what it reads, Goodell is covering up nothing, he has no need to cover up anything

[tyke1doe]

Stop it! :rolleyes:

Did you even read my rebuttles to you?

Stop what?

You said I'm not thinking. You didn't say, "Well, I see it differently than you."

This debate has become not a matter of honest disagreement but one of "if you don't accept how I see it you're irrational/not-thinking/ignorant/an imbecile/dumb/arrogant/egotistical" add your own insult.

It's really funny if not juvenile that posters are so frustrated that others don't agree with them or see things differently than they that they must resort to name-calling.

It speaks of desparation.

But, carry on. :)

[tyke1doe]

If he has tapes, why is there an issue of truth at all?

Exactly. Why can't he just hand over the tapes. Even if he testifies that the Pats filmed the walk through, wouldn't the tapes corroborate any verbal testimony? Remember, the Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.


This seems like just a tactic by the league. Walsh wants full immunity. If he gets sued for lying, the litigation could be costly and the NFL could have a loophole to back out of their indemnity agreement, even if it turns out that he wasn't lying.

He does have full immunity as long as he tells the truth. If he lies, why would the NFL want to protect him?
Besides, wouldn't the burden be on the NFL to prove his lying, especially if he has tapes to validate his claims?

[SultanOfSix]

but he isn't guilty by association

what have I said that makes you assume that I'm defending the Pats? the only thing I'm defending is Goodell from baseless claims

it means exactly what it reads, Goodell is covering up nothing, he has no need to cover up anything

Ok, so you're not a Pats defender. You're a Goodell defender.

The question of whether he is covering up something is what is in dispute, and the claims made against him aren't baseless. The fact still remains that covering up something is the default position until proven otherwise because it's already been established that destroying evidence is something that is not done if it proves innocence or is inconclusive.

He has to cover his *** now that he's being investigated by the government.

[tyke1doe]

Obviously tyke doesn't supposedly have one as he has claimed. The point is you and him have seemingly consistently supported each other throughout this thread with your various rationalizations. So, it's just effectively guilt by association.

:laugh2:

First, we're defending the Pats. Now, we're defending Goodell. Now we're back to defending the Pats.

I really could care less if the NFL suspends Belichick for life, personally. I would be more than happy if the Pats didn't win another Super Bowl this decade and, personally, that's what I'm hoping for because for selfish reasons I don't want to see the Pats win four Super Bowls as team of the decade when the Cowboys only won only three.

Having said that, I am merely arguing that I understand why Goodell would order the tapes destroyed.

But you guys seem so frustrated that someone would dare hold that opinion. It's quite amusing the venom, simplistic conclusions and childishness displayed simply because a few posters disagree with the notion of a cover-up or conspiracy theory.

Now, could there be one? Of course. I don't rule that out. And it is, indeed, a possibility. But I can understand why Goodell would want the tapes destroyed beyond trying to cover up the excessive cheating of the Pats.

[theogt]

Exactly. Why can't he just hand over the tapes. Even if he testifies that the Pats filmed the walk through, wouldn't the tapes corroborate any verbal testimony? Remember, the Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.



He does have full immunity as long as he tells the truth. If he lies, why would the NFL want to protect him?
Besides, wouldn't the burden be on the NFL to prove his lying, especially if he has tapes to validate his claims?Did you not read my post? He could end up screwed even if he is telling the truth. Senator Spector also commented on the inadequacy of the league's indemnity offer. The laegue simply doesnt want his tapes.

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok, so you're not a Pats defender. You're a Goodell defender.

The question of whether he is covering up something is what is in dispute, and the claims made against him aren't baseless. The fact still remains that covering up something is the default position until proven otherwise because it's already been established that destroying evidence is something that is not done when if it proves innocence or is inconclusive.

wouldn't to disprove your claim mean that there is something in your claim to disprove? all you've given me is some default bull-crap that you made up

unless you have a list of what makes something a default conspiracy theory, I'll be glad to read it

He has to cover his *** now that he's being investigated by the government.

they're asking him for tapes, and the Government hasn't even stepped into this yet

[Bob Sacamano]

Now, could there be one? Of course. I don't rule that out. And it is, indeed, a possibility. But I can understand why Goodell would want the tapes destroyed beyond trying to cover up the excessive cheating of the Pats.

but that's not the default position! you have to disprove nothing, w/ something!

[tyke1doe]

If you say I don't know, then I'm sure I know what I'm talking about.

What the hell is your point in contrasting the NFL and the government as not being bound by the same legal requirements, whatever the hell that means? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You offered the drug analogy. And I offered an example of drugs being disposed in a way which does not comport with legal procedures.

Don't get mad at me if you keep offering examples easy to shoot down. :)

[5Stars]

Stop what?


But, carry on. :)


Don't get mad...

I at least learned some new words! That's kool.... :D
:star:



(stupid cowboy fans)...:o:

[tyke1doe]

but that's not the default position! you have to disprove nothing, w/ something!

People can have their conspiracies all they want. I'll "grant" them their conspiracies. That doesn't mean I have to believe them.

[tyke1doe]

Don't get mad...

I at least learned some new words! That's kool.... :D
:star:



(stupid cowboy fans)...:o:

You didn't know the word "mad" before I introduced it? :eek: ;) :)

[5Stars]

Good for you...

[SultanOfSix]

wouldn't to disprove your claim mean that there is something to disprove, all you've given me is some default bull-crap that you made up

unless you have a list of what makes something a default conspiracy theory, I'll be glad to read it

I don't have to disprove anything. YOU DON'T DESTROY EVIDENCE IF IT PROVES INNOCENCE OR IS INCONCLUSIVE. That leaves only one other possibility and that is guilt. I made the argument that when proof of guilt is destroyed, it implicates a cover up unless shown otherwise. And Goodell's reasons have been deemed insufficient by the Senator, other members of the government, and the public in general.

Only the most obstinate and irrational people argue against such a scenario.

they're asking him for tapes, and the Government hasn't even stepped into this yet

I'm sure the Senator is doing this all on his own time with his own private investigative firm. :rolleyes:

[tyke1doe]

Weren't you the turd that criticized me for this? By the way, you also have some subject-verb problems going on here.

Yes, that turd be me. I am guilty as charged. :D

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't have to disprove anything. YOU DON'T DESTROY EVIDENCE IF IT PROVES INNOCENCE OR IS INCONCLUSIVE. That leaves only one other possibility and that is guilt. I made the argument that when proof of guilt is destroyed, it implicates a cover up unless shown otherwise. And Goodell's reasons have been deemed insufficient by the Senator, other members of the government, and the public in general.

of course you don't have to disprove anything, but at least bring something to the table other than a list that you made up

talk about something not holding up in a court of law, your flimsy evidence will blow away in the wind

I'm sure the Senator is doing this all on his own time with his own private investigative firm. :rolleyes:

one Senator does not represent the whole United States Government, the dude can't take any meaningful action until the rest of his cohorts get involved

[tyke1doe]

Did you not read my post? He could end up screwed even if he is telling the truth. Senator Spector also commented on the inadequacy of the league's indemnity offer. The laegue simply doesnt want his tapes.

I read you post.

You say the league doesn't want his tapes.

Hhhmm?


NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.


If the league doesn't want his tapes, why would Goodell want him to turn them over?

Furthermore, why would the league protect him to lie? That doesn't sound strange to you? :confused:

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"


And again ...


But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.
"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

It seems reasonable to conclude he has to tell the truth to receive immunity. It appears to me Walsh is trying to weasel out of the deal. If he has the tapes that prove the Patriots taped the Rams walk-through, shouldn't that be evidence to support his claim, particularly since the Patriots say they did not tape the walk through?

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Bob Sacamano]

It seems reasonable to conclude he has to tell the truth to receive immunity.

most prosecutors strive for that

it seems the only one who's looking out for his *** is Walsh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok, not sure if this is common knowledge by now, but I was listening to NFL Radio on the drive home and the announced that Walsh's attorney said that he has tapes and will reveal them if the league promises to indemnify him (which apparently they haven't done yet, despite what I thought Goodell said).

And this is exactly why i am pleased that Specter is getting onvolved. If goodell wants to use double speak and drag his feet then someone needs to step in.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

most prosecutors strive for that

it seems the only one who's looking out for his *** is Walsh

He has a nondisclosure agreement with the pats. without indemntiy then they could sue him for damages for releasing the information. i would cover my *** too if i was a golf pro and they could sue me for millions nand millions of dollars.

[Bob Sacamano]

He has a nondisclosure agreement with the pats. without indemntiy then they could sue him for damages for releasing the information. i would cover my *** too if i was a golf pro and they could sue me for millions nand millions of dollars.

what's holding up the indemnity is Walsh not swearing that he will tell the whole truth

[superpunk]

Here's a great post from a Seahawks fan. I'm not sure what this conversation has devolved into, but here it is.

Well, now that I look back, looks like it has to be pieced together, and then other spokespersons for the NFL creates a motif, really.

Goodell added more detail to the NFL’s actions against the club, noting that the league had obtained six tapes from the Patriots. Goodell said the six tapes included some games from the 2007 preseason and the rest were “primarily from late in the 2006 season.” (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/02/goodell_on_patr.html)

As part of the league's investigation, Goodell determined the filming of Jets coaches had no impact on the outcome of the game. Goodell also ruled that Robert Kraft and Patriots ownership were unaware of the filming.... Ha. He ruled that, did he? I guess he can rule whatever he damn well pleases. (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/14/big_fines_for_belichick_team/)

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: told TMQ that assumption the tapes contained indications of Super Bowl cheating is "wrong," then wrote, "There is no such evidence regarding the Patriots' Super Bowl victories." (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl)

Official NFL Statement: "The Patriots have fully cooperated and complied with the requirements of the commissioner's decision," the statement said. "All tapes, documents and other records relating to this matter were turned over to the league office and destroyed, and the Patriots have certified in writing that no copies or other records exist.
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3029661)
And he aso said, if he found out they didn't give him everything, he'd "re-visit" the matter, and that he "absolutely" believed they'd turn over everything. That doesn't count, though, because both cases were before they turned over the materials. But nevertheless, the NFL said everything was turned over, and destroyed, and Goodell said there were 6 tapes.

And now he says they'd been taping since 2000, so either 1) the tapes actually did go back to 2000, and he previously lied, or

2) they didn't go back that far, but he found out they taped since 2000, pretty much by admission only, if we're to believe there was no evidence to support that (since the tapes supposedly only went back to late 2006). In this case, he either didn't pursue getting those tapes from him, or the Pats themselves destroyed them, or something, as if they no longer needed them and only needed the most recent 6 games (yeah right), or something, who knows, but how Goodell was to be satisfied with any sort of answer, without proof, that there were no tapes beyond those 6, while somehow knowing that taping had gone on since 2000, means he's actually, truly, incredibly stupid, which is a possibility, or he deliberately fabricated an impression (maybe it was an actual lie, maybe it wasn't, but it was misleading, and deliberate) that nothing in any superbowl season, or anything beyond the prior 6 games (4 preseason games and two 2006 games, regular or post season), was tainted by the cheating.

And, as TMQ and Specter, not to mention plenty of us, have mentioned, if the tapes he received from the Pats were the only copies, as he said, then his reasoning for destroying them is completely illegitimate, since them being locked up, in the league office or something, means there's zero danger of the Pats or anyone else getting a competitive edge off of them.

We knew the Packers had complained, the year before, but I didn't know exactly how they complained, or who to. This article (http://www.thestar.com/article/257693) says the Packers reported it to the league (that game was not in the last 2 of the 2006 season, or even in the last 6...it was week 11). The league only sent a warning, and then somehow Robert Kraft never knew about the whole thing until the Jets incident in week 1. And Goodell found in his invesitgation that Kraft was unaware of the whole thing, strange that he would go out of his way to mention that, officially, while being so quiet about everything else. And Kraft is the one who personally cast the vote, on behalf of the Patriots, the last time the league voted whether or not to allow one defensive player to have a communication headset like the QB, and the measure was defeated, with a small minority saying no, and the Patriots were among those who said no.

I guess all of that is peripheral really, at best. That last paragraph. But still, it seems pretty clear to me, he moved quickly, and showed where his interests lay: in looking like a sheriff, making it look like the problem had been solved, closing the case as quickly as possible, and keeping the public awareness of the taint of it all quarantined within this 6 week window, most of which was insignificant pre-season time, with no regard for how reaching the taint really, truly was, or what to do to clean it up. It's not an out and out conspiracy, but he made gargantuan misteps, in handling this thing, and I truly hope it comes back to bite him.

[peplaw06]

Thank you for the example. And here is my reply.

I'd say that many parents have done that very thing, flushing drugs down the toilet when they discovered them in their children's bedrooms. And there are parents that have gone a step beyond that and have checked their drug-using children into rehab clinics.
They (the parent) did their own investigation, which uncovered the drugs. They, instead of keeping the drugs, disposed of them. Then they administered their own brand of punishment.

Why is this permissible or acceptable? Because parents operate under a different set of rules than the legal system. When the legal system gets involved, there are different procedures involved.

Similarly, the NFL and Goodell operate from a different set of rules and procedures than the legal system.

So trying to compare what Goodell did to the legal system isn't an apple-to-orange comparison.

But the parental example works perfectly even with the drug example. :)

Using this example, let's say that the cops are beating down the door as mom flushes sons drugs. Think there's a cover up?

And another thing, does mom have to have a search warrant to go into son's room and look through his dresser?

[Bob Sacamano]

Using this example, let's say that the cops are beating down the door as mom flushes sons drugs. Think there's a cover up?

:laugh2:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what's holding up the indemnity is Walsh not swearing that he will tell the whole truth

how can the NFL stipulate/enforce that?

youre sworn in beofre speaking before congress.

[Bob Sacamano]

how can the NFL stipulate/enforce that?

youre sworn in beofre speaking before congress.

Goodell isn't taking Walsh to court, that's why, he wants Walsh's word that everything he tells him is factual

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Goodell isn't taking Walsh to court, that's why, he wants Walsh's word that everything he tells him is factual

That was my point. There is no point to him asking that.

Bob i want youre word to always tell the truth. If you dont ill be really really really really really really really really really upset.

[Bob Sacamano]

That was my point. There is no point to him asking that.

Bob i want youre word to always tell the truth. If you dont ill be really really really really really really really really really upset.

really? something this important, you don't want to make sure that the guy is being totally honest w/ you? it shouldn't be that hard to say, "yes, everything that I'm reporting to you is 100% accurate, and truthful, to the best of my knowledge"

what's so hard about that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

really? something this important, you don't want to make sure that the guy is being totally honest w/ you? it shouldn't be that hard to say, "yes, everything that I'm reporting to you is 100% accurate, and truthful, to the best of my knowledge"

what's so hard about that?

But they cant. they dont have the authority to ask that.

thats my point. and i doubt they just wnat him to say that. im sure they want him to sign something.

i really just want spectre to subpeona him and give him immunity. that way hes got perjury over his head and this crap of goodell goes away. since when has this been askied for out of court in this manner? it hasnt and its crap.

[Bob Sacamano]

But they cant. they dont have the authority to ask that.

but he has the right to withhold indemnity w/o the disclaimer

i really just want spectre to subpeona him and give him immunity. that way hes got perjury over his head and this crap of goodell goes away. since when has this been askied for out of court in this manner? it hasnt and its crap.

what are you asking me here?

what Goodell is asking Walsh is pretty simple and painless, but I agree, I want this to end quickly too, there's just too much dragging of feet going on, from both parties

Goodell give up the evidence, Walsh show the evidence, bing, bam, bodda, boo

[peplaw06]

But sole authority to investigate does not mean he has the power of search and seizure. It just means he is the only person who can conduct an investigation. That he has and that he did. So who has to give him permission to do a search and seizure? Is that not part of an investigation? If he doesn't have the authority to do that, how can he have "sole authority?"

Because you can't help yourself. You're very frustrated so you lash out like a child. And yet you can't pull yourself away from the conversation even though you have said you would do so on numerous occasions. I'm only frustrated because it seems like you're not reading English... it's like there's something being lost in translation.

All you can do is spin words to create the facade that they comport with your argument, when they clearly don't. People bring up inconsistencies in your arguments, and you turn em around and say, "that's my point."

Be that as it may, yes, having "sole authority" does not mean that Goodell has the power to go into the Pats office and seize tapes. That's why he asked the Pats to turn over the tapes. That's not hard to understand. Yet another instance of you not being able to pick up on simple concepts. Sole authority is sole authority. You've yet to show any indication that Goodell would have to have anything even remotely resembling a search warrant to go in there and seize the tapes. You're the one trying to compare law enforcement requirements to the NFL's requirements. And it's apparently just because you say so, because I've yet to see anything that backs up what you've said.

Does your boss have to have a search warrant to go through your emails or see what you've been looking at on your computer at work? I'll save you the suspense, he doesn't.

So what other option did he have other than to ask the Pats to turn over the tapes? Are you saying he could go into their office and seize the tapes? Yes that's what I'm saying. Do you have something that says otherwise?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

but he has the right to withhold indemnity w/o the disclaimer



what are you asking me here?

what Goodell is asking Walsh is pretty simple and painless, but I agree, I want this to end quickly too, there's just too much dragging of feet going on, from both parties

no actually its not. under what is going on here the patriots could simply call him a liar and then sue him with little to no evidence.

basically what hes saying is that he will come forward tell the truth in good faith and then they can do with it whatever they like. as i stated before im glad that spectre is getting involved because this crap from goodell is just garbage. the nfl should wnat him to come forward right? they certainly arent acting like it.

Walsh's attorney says NFL indemnification offer falls short

By Mike Fish
ESPN.com
(Archive)

Updated: February 15, 2008, 8:23 PM ET

* Comment
* Email
* Print

The attorney for Matt Walsh said the former New England Patriots video assistant is agreeable to providing information about the team's illegal taping practices, but as of Friday said the NFL has fallen short of his request for complete indemnification, which would protect Walsh from being sued.

Walsh, who was employed by the Patriots from 1996 to 2003, has suggested to ESPN.com that he has information that could be potentially damaging to the league and the Patriots. He has, to date, refused to provide specifics or turn over potential evidence without protection against potential lawsuits.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said that the league will "absolutely'' offer indemnification in turn for Walsh's cooperation. But Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, said the offer presented Monday by league counsel Jeffrey Pash does not meet the standards for indemnification agreements.

A standard indemnification agreement, Walsh's attorney said, protects against allegations of untruthfulness as long as there is not "bad faith.''

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification,'' Levy told ESPN.com. "It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation or litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful the NFL will do so promptly.''

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league believes it has offered to provide Walsh adequate coverage, if he is truthful.

"We offered immunity from litigation under two conditions, that he tell the truth and he return anything he took from the Patriots,'' Aiello said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been critical of the league's handling of Spygate and continues to investigate. Specter said he has the support of Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., though the importance of what his investigation uncovers will determine if there's a need for committee hearings.

Specter has been in communication with the attorney for Walsh, and the lawmaker said he believes the former Patriots employee is a key to his investigation.

Walsh's attorney said his trust of the NFL is an issue after learning that a league security officer and former FBI agent, Dick Farley, had interviewed two of Walsh's former co-workers at a Cape Cod golf course in Massachusetts. Walsh, 31, has been an assistant golf pro at several courses in New England and Arizona since leaving the Patriots. He currently works at a course on Maui.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has,'' Levy said.

Aiello, the NFL spokesman, acknowledged that the league has looked at public records to verify Walsh's employment history in "an effort to learn about him -- however that is done.''

Michael Levy, head of the white-collar investigations and enforcement group at the Washington firm of McKee Nelson, said gaining Walsh's cooperation is dependent upon the league meeting his terms for complete indemnification, which he provided Thursday to the NFL's outside counsel, Gregg Levy.

Under the NFL's indemnification offer, Walsh's attorney said his client could still be sued if, for instance, the Patriots contested the accuracy of whatever information he comes forward with. That could prove an enormous cost battling an NFL franchise in court.

"It is very easy to allege someone has been untruthful even if it can't be proven,'' Michael Levy said. "The NFL's proposal would leave Mr. Walsh completely unprotected against such an unproven allegation, because he would have to defend against it himself. And the NFL wants Mr. Walsh to give up the very materials he might need to prove his truthfulness.''

Someone could argue, according to both Levy and Specter, that Goodell was untruthful when he misconstrued facts in a Jan. 31, 2008, letter to Specter. While assuring Specter that the league's investigation uncovered no videotaping chicanery by the Patriots leading up to their 2005 Super Bowl victory against the Philadelphia Eagles, Goodell wrote, "The two teams had only played one other game against each other in the current decade, a preseason game in the summer of 2003.''

In fact, the Super Bowl showdown was the fifth game between the teams in the preceding 2½ years.

"Clearly, commissioner Goodell should not seek to hold Mr. Walsh to a higher standard than the standard to which he would hold himself,'' Levy said. The attorney was careful to note that although Goodell's letter was inaccurate, he doesn't believe he acted in bad faith.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248267&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

[Bob Sacamano]

no actually its not. under what is going on here the patriots could simply call him a liar and then sue him with little to no evidence.

basically what hes saying is that he will come forward tell the truth in good faith and then they can do with it whatever they like. as i stated before im glad that spectre is getting involved because this crap from goodell is just garbage. the nfl should wnat him to come forward right? they certainly arent acting like it.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248267&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

in that article you posted, Walsh will receive immunity from judicial authority if he hands over the tapes that he took from the Pats, and is truthful

simple

Walsh just looks like a scared *****, honestly, "the NFL is sending private investigators, oh noezzz! I ascared"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

in that article you posted, Walsh will receive immunity from the Pats if he hands over the tapes that he took from them, and is truthful

simple

Walsh just looks like a scared *****, honestly

no it doesnt. he can think hes telling the truth and still be sued if he shows any inaccuracy. thats why typically the language is 'bad faith.'

the only thing is that if goodell continues to fail to get anything done then congress is going to take over and his legacy of incompetence continues.

[Bob Sacamano]

no it doesnt. he can think hes telling the truth and still be sued if he shows any inaccuracy. thats why typically the language is 'bad faith.'

all dude has to do is be prepared and make sure his story is straight and adds up ie be truthful

and hand over property that doesn't belong to him

screwing over Walsh would be professional suicide for Goodell

the only thing is that if goodell continues to fail to get anything done then congress is going to take over and his legacy of incompetence continues.

Walsh is holding up the proceedings too because he's too afraid of Goodell and his henchmen

and who gives a frick about Goodell's legacy? the whole thing behind this is the Pats getting their fair share of punishment

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all dude has to do is be prepared and make sure his story is straight and adds up ie be truthful

and hand over property that doesn't belong to him

screwing over Walsh would be professional suicide for Goodell



Walsh is holding up the proceedings too because he's too afraid of Goodell and his henchmen

and who gives a frick about Goodell's legacy? the whole thing behind this is the Pats getting their fair share of punishment

He can think hes got his story straight and still be sued for any inconsistency that the Pats want to concoct.

This is already professional suicide for Goodell. Hes been in damage control mode from the beginning and its only getting worse for him. Its already readily apparent that his initial investigation was incompetent or intentiaonally ineffective. Not interviewing former video employees is about as stupid as possible.

Additionally its not the league that Walsh has to worry about. its that Pats and Goodell cannot prohibit them from filing suit against Walsh.

[Bob Sacamano]

He can think hes got his story straight and still be sued for any inconsistency that the Pats want to concoct.

if he's being truthful, there will be no inconsistencies to legitimately point out, now will there?

This is already professional suicide for Goodell. Hes been in damage control mode from the beginning and its only getting worse for him. Its already readily apparent that his initial investigation was incompetent or intentiaonally ineffective. Not interviewing former video employees is about as stupid as possible.

:laugh2: I knew you were going to say that

Additionally its not the league that Walsh has to worry about. its that Pats and Goodell cannot prohibit them from filing suit against Walsh.

if GOodell can't protect Walsh, what do you expect him to do then?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if he's being truthful, there will be no inconsistencies to legitimately point out, now will there?



:laugh2: I knew you were going to say that



then it's useless to push GOodell to do something when he can't protect Walsh, I don't know why you're getting sore at him then

he'll just have to wait for Spectre to grant him immunity then, or take the risk and cooperate w/ Goodell to get the indemnity

Its not useless if he says tht the standard is good faith and not truth.

You dont know what youre talking about. Walsh is saying he is willing to go in there and not lie. The league wants him to tell the truth and those two things are not the same. you cannot lie but still not tell the truth. in order to lie you have to willingly report something you know to be false. if you do it unintentionally then you are acting in good faith and thus not lying.

Basically if Walsh goes in and speaks in good faith and says an inaccuracy then he is wide open for litigation from the Pats.

If he gets the indemnity he wants then the Pats would have to prove that he acted in bad faith which is a completely different story. i dont understand why they would give him that and bring him in.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

doesn't good faith and truth kind of go hand-in-hand anyways?



then tell the truth and return the tapes, idk, do something

no they arent. i can act in good faith and still not say what is true.

For a long time i thought ambivalent meant the same thing as apathetic. when i called someone ambivalent i wasnt lying but i still wasnt saying the truth.

and the league can protect him, they are just not choosing to do it.

you deleted you post is ee.

[Bob Sacamano]

Its not useless if he says tht the standard is good faith and not truth.

don't they kind of go hand in hand anyways?

You dont know what youre talking about. Walsh is saying he is willing to go in there and not lie. The league wants him to tell the truth and those two things are not the same. you cannot lie but still not tell the truth. in order to lie you have to willingly report something you know to be false. if you do it unintentionally then you are acting in good faith and thus not lying.

wth? then dude should be telling Goodell what he knows to be truthful, instead of stuff that he doesn't know to be true

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't they kind of go hand in hand anyways?



wth? then dude should be telling Goodell what he knows to be truthful, instead of stuff that he doesn't know to be true

read my above. you can think you know something and be wrong. people make mistakes and the way it is right now the pats can sue walsh for making an honest mistake.

[Bob Sacamano]

no they arent. i can act in good faith and still not say what is true.

but wouldn't you try to avoid saying stuff you don't know to be true or not?

For a long time i thought ambivalent meant the same thing as apathetic. when i called someone ambivalent i wasnt lying but i still wasnt saying the truth.

and the league can protect him, they are just not choosing to do it.


indemnity is protection

you deleted you post is ee.

cuz you edited your's

[Bob Sacamano]

read my above. you can think you know something and be wrong. people make mistakes and the way it is right now the pats can sue walsh for making an honest mistake.

don't throw crap against the wall, and you won't make an honest mistake *not you per se*

sounds simple to me

just tell Goodell what you know to be true, not what you think may be true